House of Representatives
27 March 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1307

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women ‘s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns, Dr Cass, Mr Jarman and Mr Lloyd.

Petitions received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite, Mr Drummond and Mr Jarman.

Petitions received.

Television

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:

  1. That television reception in the Pingaring area has deteriorated with the closure of Channel 4 and the introduction of Channel5A.
  2. That many citizens have spent $200 or more on adjustments to television sets and antennae without improving their television reception.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will take immediate action to improve television reception in the Pingaring area.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bungey.

Petition received.

Taxation

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for selfprovision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns.

Petition received.

Australian Rum: Excise Duty

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

That the retail price of Australian rum is too high and should be reduced to enable the average Australian to buy it.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that steps be taken to reduce the excise duty on Australian rum.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron.

Petition received.

Olympic Games

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that in the interest of Amateur Sport we deplore the proposed boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games to be held in Moscow. We believe that such a boycott would be prejudicial to Amateur Sport not only in Australia but throughout the world.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will take steps to protect the autonomy of Australian sportsmen and women and respect their right as citizens of our democratic society to compete in the Moscow Olympics should they wish.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jacobi.

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of Parliament assembled in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Canberra. The humble petition of the undersigned members or organisations listed below and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the thorough nationwide investigations by the Working Party highlighted the need to establish the National Women’s Advisory Council.

That we believe the Council consistently and democratically demonstrates its wide representation of the interests of all Australian women, as shown by the Draft Plan of Action for the 1980 National Conference to be held in Canberra in preparation for Australia’s participation in the United Nations Decade for Women World Conference in Denmark, July 1980.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Parliament will continue its support of the National Women’s Advisory Council and its recommendations.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jarman.

Petition received.

Television

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Western Australia respectfully showeth:

That we are concerned about the poor television reception in the Lake Grace district which has been caused by the reduction of power output from the Wagin Transmitter.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Parliament will take steps to restore the Wagin Transmitter at least to its previous output level so that a better television reception can be provided for the Lake Grace Shire and the surrounding districts.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bungey.

Petition received.

page 1308

BANKRUPTCY OF SMALL BUSINESSMEN

Notion of Motion

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House notes that since the Prime Minister assumed office the rate of bankruptcy of small businessmen in the road transport industry has increased by 145 per cent to an average rate of nine a week;

The House observes that the increased rate of bankruptcy of these small businessmen is the direct result of his Government’s failure to protect them from exploitation by major corporations and its trebling of dieseline prices;

This House deplores the refusal of the Prime Minister to meet small businessman, Mr Carl Breen, to discuss the severe difficulties facing small business operators in the road transport industry; and

Finally, this House calls on the Prime Minister to adopt a consistent policy in respect of small businessmen being exploited by major corporations.

page 1308

NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT: FOREIGN POLICY

Notice of Motion

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I give notice that on the next day of the sitting I shall move:

That this House deplores the shameful action of Mr Wran in seeking to subvert Australian foreign policy, in attempting to separate New South Wales from the rest of Australia in international affairs and in giving unashamed and gratuitous comfort and support to the cruel and callous aggression of the Soviet Union.

page 1308

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1308

QUESTION

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (IMPACT OF PROPOSALS) ACT

Mr HOWE:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Is it a fact that no public inquiries have been commissioned by the Fraser Government under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974? Is it also a fact that proposals have been made for public inquiries into the proposed flooding of the lower Franklin and Gordon Rivers by the Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission? Is this area important from the point of view of both the national and world heritage? Does the Minister agree that, given the importance of these two rivers to the ecology of the south-west of Tasmania, a public inquiry should be initiated by the Commonwealth Government? Why has the Minister refused the request by the Australian Conservation Foundation for a public inquiry under the Federal legislation?

Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and the Environment · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-The question directed to me by the honourable member is really a matter for the Tasmanian Government. The Tasmanian Government has released for public comment a 35-volume document prepared by the HydroElectric Commission. That document is open for public comment at the moment. A final decision is not likely to be taken by the State Government, I am informed, until early 1981.I do not believe that the Commonwealth Government should interfere in these matters- cetainly not at this stage. Since 1975 the Federal Government has given assistance to the Tasmanian Government to do a resources study in south-western Tasmania. So far a total of $300,000 has been allocated by the Federal Government to the Tasmanian Government for this resources study. The last payment of $75,000 was made earlier this year. I believe that it is still a matter for the Tasmanian Government. It has not yet made any decisions about this matter.

page 1309

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES IN MOSCOW

Mr CARLTON:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Home Affairs seen reports that the New South Wales Government has pledged financial support -

Opposition members- Hear, hear!

Mr CARLTON:

-To ensure that the New South Wales athletes get to the Moscow Olympic Games in defiance of the Federal Government’s suggested boycott? Will such a move have any effect on the Federal Government’s policy in relation to the holding of the Olympic Games in Moscow?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It was very revealing to hear Hear, hear! ‘ from the Opposition side in relation to what the Premier of New South Wales has been saying. Obviously it is a very singular piece of political opportunism; it is one that I hope everyone will realise can be very readily exposed. One might well ask why Mr Wran did not make this generous offer some weeks ago. The reason he is doing it now is that the New South Wales Olympic appeal is almost full and the strain on the coffers of New South Wales would not be very great at all if he had to meet his pledge. As I said, this is a singular piece of political opportunism and it really brings us back to what the real issue in this matter is. Honourable members on the other side can guffaw. They should read the other news this morning about the seven members of the Afghan national soccer team. The Leader of the Opposition can smile if he likes, but I can tell him that the people of Australia are not going to smile.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The question has been asked and the answer should be heard in silence.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it a point of order?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes. The Minister has dropped some marbles on the floor and I think he ought to be allowed to pick them up.

Mr Ellicott:

– You are gradually losing your marbles.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I think the Leader of the Opposition ought to understand that he owes a responsibility to the Parliament. He occupies a very significant office in the Parliament.

Government members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members on my right will remain silent. The Leader of the Opposition ought not to make an interjection of that kind. It only provokes noisiness in the House. I ask honourable members on my left to remain silent while the answer is given.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Prime Minister wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I think so, Mr Speaker. The point that I want to make is that when you asked the Leader of the Opposition whether it was a point of order he said yes. Quite patently it was not, and he knew it not to be so. Therefore, deliberately or otherwise, he misled you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that honourable members would be well advised to consult the dignity of the House and not to proceed in this fashion. I remind the House that this is the seat of democracy of the country. The purpose of the House is to allow people to be heard.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– What I was saying when I was interrupted was that the Australian people would not be smiling about the fact that seven members of the national soccer team of Afghanistan are now in West Germany having escaped in disguise over the Afghan border, and that some of them are seeking refuge, asylum, in West Germany. Why?

Mr Scholes:

– Are you saying that they would not have stayed there if there had not been a boycott?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Corio.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– He does not want to know why. He does not want the people to know why. The simple reason is this -

Mr Scholes-Mr Speaker, you have warned me for interjecting. The Minister is quite out of order in then responding to an interjection, not the question, especially when he is telling the Parliament lies.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio is deliberately being provocative. I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Scholes:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask him to withdraw.

Mr Scholes:

– I am trying to withdraw. I can ‘t if I can’t speak.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.

Mr Scholes:

– I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will now resume his seat. I call the Minister.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-The reason why three of the members of the national soccer team of Afghanistan are seeking asylum in West Germany is simply that the Soviet Union was trying to force them to go to the Soviet Union and express some friendly relationship between the Soviets and Afghanistan; that is the reason. I believe that, unlike the unpatriotic attitudes of the Opposition- I do not apologise for saying thisthe basic attitude of the Australian people will be a feeling of sympathy for those athletes. That brings us back to the real reason. What Mr Wran and the Australian Labor Party are trying to do is to take the vision of the Australian people away from the real issue. The real issue is what the Soviets are doing in Afghanistan and what they are now doing to athletes. Every time that the honourable member for Reid and others say something in protest about what I am saying they are saying something on behalf of what the Russians are doing in Afghanistan. It is about time that this situation was exposed and understood by the Australian people. When this matter arose in this Parliament earlier this year -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– There was disgust and abhorrence on the part of all Australians. One hoped that it was felt also by members of the Labor Party, but now they are descending to political opportunism. Even if they do not stand in favour of the athletes of Afghanistan, who seek now refuge outside their own country, we on this side will continue in our determination to do so. I believe that every decent Australian athlete will do the same thing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– In conclusion, I say that we have in New South Wales a papier-mache politician backed only by an expensive machine and it is time that he was exposed as well.

page 1310

QUESTION

AGENT ORANGE

Mr KERIN:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the Minister for Defence to the comments of his former Prime Minister, Sir John Gorton, who was also a Defence Minister, that there should be a full and public inquiry to determine whether and where agent orange was used in Vietnam in relation to Australian troop operations. Given the serious implications of the claims made by a significant number of exservicemen, with more and more coming forward each day with statements in direct contradiction of the official account, will the Minister move to set up an independent judicial inquiry to examine publicly all details and to distinguish fact from fiction?

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Whether or not an inquiry of the character suggested by the honourable gentleman should be set up is plainly a matter for Government consideration, not for individual ministerial consideration. I would just like to recapitulate to the House what I said yesterday. All of my inquiries to officers directly concerned would indicate that agent orange was not used. I can only repeat that to the House.

Dr Cass:

– Other toxic herbicides were.

Mr KILLEN:

– I said yesterday that other toxic herbicides were used. That is a matter of public notoriety. No attempt has been made to disguise that. The honourable gentleman intrigues me when he says that people are coming forward. This morning I listened to the AM program on which what purported to be two former officers gave an account. I do not know what is expected of me other than to tell to the House the truth as I see it. I have given to the House the truth as I have found it from the records. But I find it despicable that the Australian Broadcasting Commission would allow a charge to be made against a Minister that he has been less than frank with the national Parliament and for the person who made the charge to say, ‘If I reveal my identity I can be physically threatened, my family can be physically threatened and my business can be put at risk’, with a clear implication that I, as the responsible Minister, would condone such action. As I said yesterday, I have been a member of this place for a very long time. I want to leave it holding, I hope, the reputation that I have always dealt with this Parliament fairly and honestly. I do not propose to allow a few scatological minds in the Australian Broadcasting Commission to disturb that.

page 1311

QUESTION

FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that after 1 July single income families paying standard rate tax will suffer a tax penalty of $490 as compared with twoincome families? Is it also a fact that, if the spouse rebate were to be increased from $800 to equal the notional rebate of $1,290 now being given to two-income families, this bias in the tax system could be corrected? Is it not a fact that, if this were done, an amount equal to the net cost of going halfway to restoring the value of family allowances to their 1976 level could be provided in such a way as to ensure, firstly, that the vast majority of families with children would receive a worthwhile net increase in their family allowances and, secondly, that all low income mothers and low income families would receive net increases in their family allowances of $4 instead of 85c for one child, $6.50 instead of $2 for two children and $9.50 instead of only $3.50 for three children?

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures provided by the honourable member for Sturt. The House would be aware of his continuing interest in the subject matter of his question. I make three comments in reply to it. Firstly, whether the existing taxation system imposes a penalty on single income families is something that is very much in the eye of the beholder, or should I say in the eye of the individual taxpayer. I have expressed the view before, and practical support for that view was given in the statement I made on 6 March, that there are disadvantages to single income families under the present system.

The effect of the measures of 6 March, which I believe have been widely accepted and supported throughout the community, has been to reduce some of that disadvantage in a quite fair and proper fashion. Incidentally, one journal, the National Times, suggested that the measures I announced on 6 March in some way cast doubt on the legitimacy of mothers and wives who work. In no way were those measures designed to do that and in no way does the Government seek to make value or moral judgments as to whether people should or should not work. Nonetheless, the Government has recognised a bias in the system, a weighting in the system, against single income families, and I think that what was done was a fair and logical response to that.

Whether the Government can do more in this or that tax field will depend very much upon our budgetary situation. It will not surprise the

House if I say that we see a very direct link between the capacity of governments to give more tax concessions and the level of expenditures by governments demanded by the community. We do not, of course, belong to the school of thought that believes that we can go on increasing expenditure in real terms, as the Leader of the Opposition believes, and at the same time hold out the fantasy of taxation reductions, without doing grave economic damage to the community.

page 1311

QUESTION

VIETNAM: USE OF DEFOLIANTS

Mr HOLDING:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Defence. Was the Minister aware, when he denied the use of agent orange by Australian troops in Vietnam, that the term ‘agent orange’ is used broadly, both by the Press and by the Vietnam Veterans Action Association, to cover the range of defoliants used in Vietnam and includes agents blue, orange, white and purple? Is he also aware that tordone which he stated was used by Australian troops in Vietnam, is simply the trade name used by the Dow chemical company for the extremely toxic defoliant containing a mixture of 2,4-D and piclorar which, when used by the military in Vietnam, was described as agent white?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I can only repeat to the honourable gentleman the results of my inquiries. I hold no qualifications whatsoever in the field of chemistry or physics. Indeed, I suppose the only qualification I would have there would be to light a bunsen burner. I asked my Department what toxic herbicides were used. It was a simple question, and this is the answer I was given: reglone, grammoxone, tordone and hyva. I do not wish to be disrespectful to the honourable gentleman, or indeed to the House; but, as far as I personally am concerned in the field of qualifications, they could be four horses running at Rosehill on Saturday. I have had consultations this morning, as indeed I did yesterday, with the officers concerned. I table in the Parliament one report of the Australian Army Operational Research Group on the spraying of herbicides at the site of the first Australian task force in Vietnam in 1968. I also table in the Parliament a report prepared by the Australian Defence Scientific Service of the then Department of Supply on herbicide spraying at the site of the first Australian task force, Nui Dat, Vietnam.

I can only say to the honourable gentleman that all of my inquiries of people who do have qualifications in this field have led me to give to the House the information I have given. I can only repeat what I said yesterday: If any persons have any evidence which is in contradiction of what I have put before the House, if they give the times, dates and names of people, that information will be put to use. For what it may be worth, I will defend to the end their right to put that information before the national Parliament. For my part, I will ensure that their integrity and their persons are adequately protected.

page 1312

QUESTION

ROAD FUNDS

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Transport aware of the serious deterioration of roads in Australia, particularly in country areas? When will the Minister be announcing the new three-year Commonwealth-States Roads Agreement? Will the Government be giving consideration to making substantial increases in real terms to road funding in the new agreement as a consequence of the increased fuel excise tax that is being collected from road users? In determining the new agreement, will the Minister take into account the fact that some States make no contribution to certain road categories, as is the case with local roads in New South Wales? Finally, will the new agreement contain safeguards to prevent abuses of the system whereby States can reallocate Commonwealth funds to different projects or to different road categories from those originally proposed?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Transport · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. I am well aware of the number of people who are concerned about the degree to which the road system in Australia needs additional road funding over the next triennium. Indeed, I have met a number of deputations and I have met a great number of local government associations. I am well aware of the campaign that is being engaged in by the Australian Automobile Association to obtain more funds for roads. The Commonwealth has undertaken to announce by the end of April its decisions on future levels of funding for roads. The honourable member may be assured that, in considering this question, the Government will be taking into account the advice of the Bureau of Transport Economics on the extent of current road needs as well as views expressed by States, local government authorities and road user organisations concerning what they may regard as the deficiencies in the road system. Commonwealth road allocations have to be determined, however, in the context of overall budgetary considerations. This means that we have to consider road needs at the same time as we examine other competing demands. I should add that the Commonwealth ‘s long-standing policy has been to avoid earmarking-to use a sheep man’s termfunds for particular programs.

As to the local roads in New South Wales, it is true to say that only the Commonwealth Government and local government make contributions to those local roads. The New South Wales Government has a very firm policy on the matter. In fact, it has left the funding of local roads to the Commonwealth Government and to local government. As the Minister for Primary Industry and the Prime Minister have said, this is disgraceful because there is an enormous burden upon the shoulders of local government. I think it is high time the New South Wales Government recognised that it has a very real responsibility for the road network throughout New South Wales regardless of its category.

The Commonwealth looks both to itself and to State gov ernments to share the responsibility for funding roads throughout Australia. The Commonwealth, for its part, has undertaken a major responsibility- 100 per cent- for the funding of the national highways system.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr HUNT:

– Yes, Mr Speaker. The question was a very long one and I feel that I must answer the last part of it. The honourable member can be assured that the present arrangements, which require the States to spend Commonwealth grants on categories of roads for which funds are provided and on projects included within the approved program for each category, also require the States to provide Auditor-General certificates that the Commonwealth grants have been spent according to the purpose for which they were allocated. I will make sure that the States conform to that responsibility.

page 1312

QUESTION

AGENT ORANGE

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Was the Prime Minister, as Minister for Defence from 1968 to 1971, informed by the United States Government of its decision in April 1970 to suspend all use of agent orange in Vietnam? Does the Prime Minister agree that if this information was not communicated at the time there was a serious breach of responsibility to an ally? If the Australian Government was then informed, what steps did his Department take to satisfy itself that agent orange was not being used by Australians? How many visits did the Prime Minister make to Vietnam? Did he, as alleged on the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program AM this morning, make any inspection of spraying equipment at Australian bases? Following his answer in Parliament on this issue on 5 March, has the Prime Minister made any attempt to refresh his memory on events relating to the agent orange issue while he was the Army Minister and the Defence Minister? If he has not done so, will be now do so?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-When I visited Vietnam either as Minister for the Army or as Minister for Defence my purpose was to meet and talk with as many Australian soldiers and airmen as possible. They were serving in great difficulty and with great distinction, and in a cause in which they believed. As is the constant practice of the Opposition, the honourable gentleman has tried to take the point that the United States does not inform the Australian Government on matters on which it should inform the Australian Government. It is good to know that there is a constant thread through the Australian Labor Party on those particular matters. As to the other matters, I have nothing to add to what my colleague the Minister for Defence has said.

page 1313

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S RESIDENCE

Mr HASLEM:

-Has the Prime Minister seen a report that a new Lodge for the Prime Minister is to be constructed on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin at Attunga Point? Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny this report?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– Honourable members may well have seen an advertisement headed ‘The Yarralumla Policy Plan’ that was placed in the Canberra Times a couple of days ago by the National Capital Development Commission. There were one or two interesting features of this particular plan. I think in one or two respects it was outdated even before it was published. I am only surprised that the National Capital Development Commission was not aware of that fact. For a long while sites had been set aside for a future Prime Minister’s residence to be built at some distant time in the future. At the same time, I think successive Prime Ministers have accepted that the Lodge works well and is fulfilling its purpose well. There is no intention to alter that position. At the same time, governments had enabled and permitted sites to be set aside in case some government in the future wishes to build a new Lodge and to use the present one perhaps for important visitors from overseas. As I indicated when a report of the Committee on Official Establishments was tabled in this Parliament, there is no intention of that occurring. I also indicated that the Government would be asking the Committee on Official Establishments to decide which of the two sites which have been set aside for a long timeAttunga Point and Stirling Ridge- would be the preferred site, so that one of the sites could be released.

It has in fact been my firm view that the Attunga Point site would not be an appropriate or suitable site. The Attunga Point site runs down to the foreshore of the lake and its use would interrupt the public’s use of and access to the lake. For that reason alone it would be an inappropriate site for a lodge. I also think that it would be an inappropriate site for any other public building because I believe that it ought to be preserved for public access to the lake on that part of the foreshore. As I understand it, the Committee on Official Establishments has now made its decision and very shortly will be formally recommending to the National Capital Development Commission that the Attunga Point site be released from that purpose. I am sure that that knowledge was in the hands of the National Capital Development Commission when this advertisment was published. I hope that the Commission will make it plain that there are to be no buildings on that site, that it will remain available to the public as free, open space giving access to the lake.

There are other aspects of this advertisement which the National Capital Development Commission would know are outdated. The Government has taken certain decisions about roads encircling the golf course and has indicated that those roads should not proceed right around the golf course, as is shown in the plan. So those who are concerned about the Royal Canberra Golf Club’s development of that course should go to the Minister for the Capital Territory rather than the National Capital Development Commission to get the true position in relation to the future development of the golf course and should pay no attention whatsoever to this advertisement.

page 1313

QUESTION

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT

Mr HAYDEN:

-I ask a question of the Prime Minister. I refer to the distinctly blase statement to this House on Tuesday by the Minister for Defence that the new generation of naval patrol boats, which have such a vital role to play in preserving national security, will be equipped with World War II Bofors guns because an uptodate alternative would cost $30m.

Mr Hodgman:

– Whose side are you on?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am on the side of common sense. That puts us at odds. I ask the Prime Minister: In light of the decision to acquire and remodel two Boeing 707 airliners for the personal comfort of the Prime Minister, at a total cost to public revenue of some $40m, does the statement of the Minister for Defence accurately reflect the Government’s priorities? In any case, will he review this extraordinary discrepancy as a matter of urgency, or is he determined to assert his right to indulge in comfort above the defence needs of the nation?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The honourable gentleman, in his question, used figures relating to the purchase of Boeing aircraft which are grossly inaccurate. I am sure that the -

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition may stand to raise a point of order. I ask him not to interrupt the proceedings of the House if he knows it not to be a point of order. Is it a point of order?

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I believe it ought to be pointed out that the way in which the Prime Minister is evading -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it a point of order?

Mr Hayden:

– It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to answer a question, not shirk it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman knows that it is not a point of order. I ask him to resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I put to you the proposition that it is a point of order. The Minister for Defence cannot answer as to whether the Prime Minister is determined to assert the Prime Minister’s right to indulge in comfort above the defence needs of the nation. Only the Prime Minister can answer that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I point out to the Leader of the Opposition, as he must know, that if a question is in order I will permit the question to be asked. There is no requirement on any Minister to answer the question in the way sought by the questioner. A Minister is free to answer as he chooses. Furthermore, any Minister may answer the question. The only requirement is that the answer be relevant. What the Minister for Defence is saying is relevant. I overrule the point of order.

Mr KILLEN:

– I have two comments to make. Firstly, the figures used by the honourable gentleman are not accurate. Secondly, the Boeing aircraft are not used for, as he put it, the comfort of the Prime Minister.

Mr Hayden:
Mr KILLEN:

– No. The aircraft have been used on very frequent occasions for the movement of troops and their families from Australia to Butterworth and to transport the Australians who represented this country with great distinction in Rhodesia. They have been used for refugees. I will secure for the honourable gentleman a table of the occasions upon which the Boeing aircraft have been used. I am sure that if the honourable gentleman looks at the table he will be disposed, if there is any charity in his being, to withdraw the insult in his question.

page 1314

QUESTION

GRAIN SALES TO SOVIET UNION

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of Press reports circulating in many grain growing areas of Australia that some of our overseas competitors have made sales to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which are outside the guidelines laid down following the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Are these reports true? If so, would Australia’s wheat and other grain growers be disadvantaged? Further, if the reports are true, will the Australian Government change its official policy with regard to supporting the United States position on grain sales to the USSR?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– I am aware of Press reports relating to the matter raised by the honourable member. The accusation in these Press reports is that sales are being made by countries that are party to an agreement made in Washington outside the guidelines laid down by that agreement. I think it is fair to say that sales are being made by Argentina which is not a party to that agreement. It has sold some 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes in addition to the million-tonne contract which it has. Therefore, I put those sales outside the arrangements agreed to in Washington. The other sale about which there has been Press speculation was a sale of some two million tonnes by Canada. Canada affirms quite strongly, as it is a party to the agreement in Washington, that the sale that it has made is completely within the guidelines set down in Washington.

This question arose at the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation annual conference that I attended on Monday in Surfers Paradise. There an accusation was made that the United States is selling on third markets, which is contrary to the spirit of the agreement in Washington. It was said that the United States would not seek to dispose of the 1 7 million tonnes that it withdrew from sale to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on third or other markets. 1 have no evidence to justify that claim. Indeed, I asked the spokesman at the Wheatgrowers Federation conference who was making the accusation whether he had evidence. He was only going on Press reports, as it turned out. I suggested to him that if, in his commercial knowledge, evidence came to him it would be very useful if he was to forward it to me as Minister for Primary Industry.

The House would know that a committee has been set up in Washington to deal with this matter. We have an Australian adviser on that committee which consists of representatives from all the grain growing countries that are party to the agreement. I have to say that no evidence has come before that committee to support the allegations that have been made. I would be deeply concerned if sales were being made by the United States outside the Washington agreement. I did have conversations, while I was in Paris for an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting, with Mr Hathaway who is the Under-Secretary of Agriculture for International Affairs. He gave me an assurance that the American grain growers are following the guidelines laid down in Washington. Until there is evidence to the contrary I can only say that nothing in the Australian Government’s knowledge and, it is apparent, nothing in the knowledge of the members of the Wheatgrowers Federation demonstrates with certainty that there is any departure from the guidelines. A meeting of that committee is coming up again in Washington, I think next week or the week after. I have sought further information from that committee on the accusations that have been made.

page 1315

QUESTION

AGENT ORANGE

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Defence: What reports other than those tabled today have been given to him and former Ministers for the Army and Defence, including the present Prime Minister, in relation to the contact of Australians with toxic herbicides and their contaminants and breakdown products and as to the long term effects of these substances as studied in Vietnam, the United States and elsewhere? Will the Minister table these reports and make them available to Vietnam veterans associations?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I cannot answer for my predecessors- previous Ministers for Defence or Ministers for the Army- as to what reports they have seen. I can only repeat what I said to the House yesterday and again today. I have asked all of the responsible officers- I spoke this morning with an officer who was directly involved in the herbicide program in Vietnam- and I have no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the information given to me. The answer that I gave to the honourable member for Werriwa in

February 1979 was based on information which was prepared by the then Surgeon-General, General Gurner. I will make further inquiries to see whether there are any other reports which would confirm the information that I have given. I will let the honourable gentleman know the outcome of that inquiry.

page 1315

QUESTION

TAXATION: FAMILY TRUSTS

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer Was he criticised last night for not being tough enough on trust income of children for tax purposes? Who made that criticism? How accurate is this morning’s Press criticism that he has been too tough on this matter?

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My attention has been drawn to an editorial in the Sydney Daily Telegraph this morning. I do not normally take issue with specific editorials but that particular editorial accused me of pilfering children’s piggy banks. Of course, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I do not pilfer children’s piggy banks. The editorial is a highly exaggerated, emotional and misleading comment upon the effect of antifamilytrust measures that were passed by the House last night and which, incidentally, were criticised by the Opposition as not being tough enough. The reality is that these measures will effectively curb the ability of many people in the community to minimise taxation liability significantly through the use of family trusts. For example, I remind the House that in order to be caught by the new provisions a person would need to have more than $13,000 deposited in a savings bank investment account. In order to pay the full rate of 47 per cent it would be necessary for the total capital of the investment to be somewhere in the order of $30,000. That is some piggy bank in anybody’s language. For the newspaper in question to criticise these measures in the way in which it has, most seriously of all, causes needless concern and worry to hundreds of thousands- even millions- of parents throughout Australia who earn modest incomes and who have put aside modest amounts for the future needs of their children. Clearly this measure is not aimed at that. I hope that all honourable members on both sides of the House realise that the legislation is not aimed at that sort of conduct. For the Sydney Daily Telegraph to criticise it as such is being totally emotional and totally irresponsible.

page 1316

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLERICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION: WAGE INCREASE APPLICATION

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to the recent application by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association for a 20 per cent pay increase across the board to be made retrospective to July last year, which application, if granted in full, will mean increases of up to $1 60 a week, or, in other words, an amount equal to the award rate payable to metal tradesmen in Australia. Is it a fact that Commonwealth and State public servants who have permanency of employment are now receiving wages and salaries far in excess of their equivalents in the private sector who have no permanency? If the ACOA members employed by the Public Service Board arrange for the Public Service Board to offer a wage increase to officials of their own union, will the Minister give an assurance that this increase will be passed on to the private sector and that the Government will not oppose the flow-on of such increase? Does he realise that in 1973 and in 1974 members of the ACOA employed by the Public Service Board -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is now giving information. He has asked his question. I call the Minister.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

-Some parts of the honourable gentleman’s question are perhaps more appropriately directed to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters. But in relation to wage claims, whether they be in the public sector or the private sector, the Government has always indicated that any increases given should be in accordance with the wage indexation guidelines. I reiterate support for those guidelines, from wherever the claims may come.

page 1316

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I refer the Prime Minister to the impending retirement of the permanent head of the Department of Housing and Construction, Mr George Warwick Smith, which I understand is to take place in June this year. I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the vital importance of the Department of Housing and Construction to both the economy and the construction industry, he will try to ensure that the successor is appointed from the widest possible range of applications from within and outside the Public Service.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– There certainly should be in any appointment to permanency in the Public Service and especially in any appointment of the head of a department- and a significant department- an effort, and a very real one, to make sure that the best possible person for the job is appointed to it. The honourable gentleman will be aware that this Government has established certain statutory procedures that put responsibilities on the Chairman of the Public Service Board to form a committee to advise the Government of suitable applicants from within the service. It is also open to that committee to nominate persons from outside the Public Service. It is open to the Government to make appointments from outside the Public Service, but if that appointment were not from a list provided by the committee that person would not have permanency within the Public Service. There are very good reasons for that particular provision. It prevents the political stacking of the Public Service of a kind that happened in earlier times. I am quite sure that recommendations that will at the appropriate time be put to the Government in relation to this matter will take into account the need for a person of very high quality to head that Department. I also have no doubt that the Chairman of the Public Service Board will read the honourable gentleman’s question and in making a decision the Government also will have it in mind.

page 1316

QUESTION

QUESTION TIME: LENGTH OF ANSWERS

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Mr Speaker, I raise a point for clarification. This morning only seven questions were asked from the Opposition side during Question Time. Ministers’ replies are getting more lengthy. In the interests of democracy during Question Time which you, Mr Speaker, mentioned this morning, will you ask Ministers to keep their replies brief?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I hear what the honourable gentleman has to say.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

-Mr Speaker, I would like to add to that. If the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), other members of the front bench, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) and the members of the Australian Labor Party would listen to answers in silence they would find they would get a much greater opportunity to ask questions.

page 1317

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr MARTIN:

– At 1.16 this morning the members of this chamber were participating in a somewhat, shall I say, harried debate; there was not much acrimony in it at all. So that you, Mr Speaker, may be aware of the matter which I am raising, I refer you to page 1288 of yesterday’s Hansard. In case you have not a copy of it, Mr Speaker, perhaps you will not mind if I read it to you, At 1 . 1 6 a.m. I said in the House:

I do not quarrel with the remarks of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). In many ways he has expressed the views that I would express, particularly about section 26E, as it is generally known. That section refers to the value attributable to such things as housing for employees. I do not quarrel one iota with what the honourable member for Dawson has said. His remarks have been well taken. I commend him for the manner in which he has made those remarks. I am somewhat concerned at the tone of the speech made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). I am also somewhat concerned at the tenor of the speech made by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Dean). I know that in the Committee stage I cannot answer those comments to any great degree, unless I receive a great degree of tolerance from you, Mr Chairman. I would not ask for that tolerance.

This next part is the part in respect of which I claim to have been misrepresented. There was an interjection, as reported in Hansard, by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier):

I bow to the communists.

Mr Cohen:

– At whom was he looking?

Mr MARTIN:

– He was looking directly at me, Mr Speaker. That was the part to which I took exception. I could tell that he was looking at me. He has such a telling look that I know when he is looking at me- like a stunned mullet. I have no quarrel with the Chairman of Committees. I know that his is a difficult job- I am a Deputy Chairman myself- but I said to the Chairman, as is recorded in Hansard:

Mr Chairman, I ask for a withdrawal.

The Chairman said:

Order! The honourable member has withdrawn.

Hansard reports that I said:

Mr Chairman, he has withdrawn from the chamber . . .

He had, too. May I interpolate here that not only did he withdraw from the chamber; he withdrew from the House in a somewhat hurried fashion. I continued in this vein- I was quite orderly- by saying:

Mr Chairman, he has withdrawn from the chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman must come to the point of misrepresentation.

Mr MARTIN:

-I am coming to the point now, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am glad about that.

Mr MARTIN:

-I said:

  1. . but I ask for a withdrawal of his comment. I ask that the Serjeant-at-Arms be instructed to bring him back, and that he be made to withdraw.

I might add that the Serjeant-at-Arms immediately jumped to his feet. Then there was a diversion by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter), as can be seen from Hansard. The point that I raise with you, Mr Speaker, is that I never got that withdrawal. I say that I have been misrepresented in that the clear inference there, by the way that the honourable member for Bendigo looked at me, was that I was a communist. May I state- I come now to the real part of itthat I am not a communist, I never have been a communist and I have no intention during my lifetime, no matter how long or short it may be, of ever becoming a communist, a member of the Socialist Party of Australia, the Communist Party cf Australia, Marxist-Leninist, or the various other Trotsky splinter groups of the Communist Party, or a member of the Liberal Party. I intend to stay a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am quite satisfied that the honourable member for Banks is not a member of the Communist Party.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do not suggest that it was done intentionally but rather out of ignorance. Some nights ago in this chamber, during the debate on the Human Rights Commission Bill, I made a plea to the Commissioner for Community Relations that he refrain from political activity because his very involvement seemed to be divisive in that he is not accepted in the community as a person without prejudice or bias. Following that speech, the very well meaning honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) accused me of distorting truth and fact. I have since sought the assistance of the Parliamentary Library in obtaining some of the details of the political activities of the Commissioner for Community Relations.

On the occasion to which I refer the honourable member for Melbourne Ports placed great stress on the fact that I should not believe what I read in the newspapers. The Australian, the Age, the Canberra Times, the Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sun News Pictorial all reported in November 1977 that Mr Grassby had placed his hat in the ring. Mr Grassby is quoted as having said at that time that if he decided to stand he would resign his post as Commissioner for Community Relations in accordance with Public Service regulations. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) subsequently won that preselection tussle.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Bolted in.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I thank the honourable member for confirmation of the truth of what I have just said. Secondly, on 8 May the Melbourne Age, which is a newspaper -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has gone far enough to establish his point.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am proved once again to be correct, and I accept the apology.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SCHOLES:
Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr SCHOLES:

-My personal explanation will be brief. In an answer during Question Time the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) stated that a successful boycott of the Olympic Games would have had some effect on the escape from Afghanistan of seven football players. At that time I interjected with words to this effect: ‘Would the footballers have remained in Afghanistan if there were a successful boycott of the Olympic Games?’ In his answer the Minister accused the Opposition of supporting the Soviet Union’s stance in Afghanistan, a statement which is incorrect and which the Minister knows to be incorrect. I am on record in this House and outside this House as opposing that stance. The Minister has deliberately, I think, but certainly in fact misrepresented the interjection and statements I have made in this House previously. My position on a boycott has always been that a boycott could be successful only if those proposing it were in fact serious. No boycott could possibly be considered as serious by the Soviet Union or by anybody else while Ministers of the Government profit from trade with the Soviet Union.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is debating the matter.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr PORTER:

– I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr PORTER:

– My attention has been drawn to a report on page four of the Australian of yesterday’s date where a reply to a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) is reported. It is stated that he was replying to Mr Charles Porter, Liberal, South Australia, who asked about reports at the weekend of the systematic slaughter of about 1,200 men and boys in the town of Kerala. Because there is a danger when one politician’s statements are imputed to another, I wish to correct the report. I am not Charles Porter, nor am I related to Charles Porter, a State member of Parliament in Queensland.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a brief personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr INNES:

– I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He may proceed.

Mr INNES:

– At page 1247 of yesterday’s Hansard, during the course of debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, I am recorded as having said:

The little tinpot crook from Parramatta who is a lawyer in that sort of jurisdiction would know what it is all about.

What I said was not in reference to the present honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). He is not in that category, nor is he a lawyer. I was referring to the former honourable member for Parramatta. What actually happened is that I hesitated after the word ‘from’. I could not recall his electorate and I said: ‘ExParramatta’. It is obvious to whom it refers. I make this explanation out of due respect for my colleague the honourable member for Parramatta.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman intend to apologise to the honourable member to whom he did intend to direct the comment?

Mr INNES:

– I might say that, in my old inimitable style, I withdrew after I was asked to do so.

Mr Ruddock:

– Perhaps I could ask the honourable member to withdraw again, as it has been repeated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think the honourable gentleman has made it clear that he withdraws.

page 1319

SENATE (REPRESENTATION OF TERRITORIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1319

DAY AND HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr Viner) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday next at 2.15 p.m.

page 1319

QUESTION

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I move:

I gave notice of this motion over nine months ago, but nothing has happened since then to reduce the urgent need for a change of direction in Government policy towards small business in Australia. This is the third time in this session of the Parliament that I have sought to have this subject debated in the House. The Government has so managed- should I say ‘mismanaged’the affairs of the Parliament to avoid bringing this debate on previously. I am not surprised. The Government has a very tardy record in the small business area. Furthermore, the huffing and puffing of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) pretending to be the champion of small business is laughable. I refer, of course, to his campaign in relation to section 45 D of the Trade Practices Act, and I will be saying more about that in a moment.

The small business sector occupies an important place in the Australian economy. The latest unofficial estimates put out by the Department of Industry and Commerce indicate that at the end of 1977- these are the latest figures- there were some 372,000 small businesses in Australia, representing 96 per cent, or thereabouts, of all business enterprises. These small businesses employed around 1.6 million persons, or nearly 40 per cent of the total private work force, and are found in all sections of industry and commerce. However, the contribution made by the small business sector goes way beyond that suggested by its size. Small businesses are important because they help to spread economic power, risk, responsibility and ownership and also because they keep competition alive. Of even more significance is the largely unrecognised fact that small businesses are responsible for the overwhelming majority of new private sector jobs created during periods of expansion. They tend to be more labour intensive than big business and they do not tend to expand by substituting capital for labour and machines for people.

The Fraser Government has utterly failed to develop the job creation potential of the small business sector. The Government has failed the small business sector, I assert, in two fundamental ways. Firstly, the economic policies pursued over the past four years by the Government have been disastrous for small business. Bankruptcies in the 1978-79 year were the highest since 1928 and represent an increase of 103 per cent over the level of 1975-76. The primary reason for this pressure on the small business sector is the fiscal and monetary stringency imposed by the Government. Secondly, the Government has failed to implement policies and programs which are essential to the development of the small business sector, and while the Government has been quick to serve the interests of big business, often big foreign business, it has done nothing for the small Australian businessman.

The record of the Government is abysmal, but this is not for want of grand promises. This is a government which is very quick to make promises. In the 1975 and 1977 election campaigns it made eight promises of crucial and direct significance to small business in Australia. What is even more significant is that of these eight promises it has kept only one. I congratulate the Government for keeping one out of eight promises to small business because that is above average for this particular Government. So we should count our blessings. But one blessing and seven broken promises is the record. Let me mention some of the broken promises relating to taxation, first of all. In 1 975 the Prime Minister said in his policy speech:

In the next budget we will make the first major move towards adoption of the stock valuation provisions of the Mathews Report. We will introduce the Report in full over three years.

What is the record? That is just one of the Government’s broken promises. The facts are that after partially implementing the Mathews report, the provisions were scrapped completely last year. In 1 975 the Prime Minister also said:

In our first Budget we will change the tax rules which operate unfairly against small business and private companies.

He went on:

The retention allowance will be increased to enable private companies to invest in capital equipment, and shareholders in private companies will be given the option of being taxed as a partnership in order to minimise the double taxation of private company income.

The Government has increased the retention allowance. That is its one blessing, the one promise it has kept. But we have heard nothing of the second proposal. Indeed, the whole area of tax law as it relates to companies and individuals is in urgent need of reform. At the moment, the incidence of tax varies significantly, depending on whether an individual, a partnership, a private company or a public company is carrying on the business concerned. There can be no doubt that it is the small business, particularly one which is both fast growing and honest, that is likely to be the most disadvantaged under the current confusing system. The Government has not rectified the situation, despite its having the benefit of numerous reports and despite its grand promises, which I mentioned earlier. Instead, it has adopted half measures such as the increase in the retention allowance, which gives a little extra to the tax avoider and not enough to the genuine small businessman, who needs all the capital he can get for his valuable job creation. We in the Opposition believe that the undistributed profits tax should be comprehensively reviewed to ensure that a more rational, efficient and equitable taxation treatment for small business is achieved.

Let us now look at the area of services for small businesses. The Opposition does not believe that such services as counselling, financial advice and management training are necessarily best administered at the national level. However, we do believe that the Commonwealth has a responsibility to co-ordinate State services and to provide financial assistance to enable the States to carry out their role. The Government has not established a national service as such. The States have been left to go it alone. Labor did commence the establishment of such a national service, but an end was put to that work when the Fraser Government took over.

This Government is also forgetful in the area of trade practices and the small business sector. One of the most important industries which is comprised predominantly of small businessmen is the petrol reselling industry. There are about 12,000 petrol retailers in Australia and the industry is a significant employer. If the Government was really concerned about trade practices and small business, we could expect to look at this industry and find an exemplary record. Instead, we find delays, disappointments, and broken promises again. The need for special legislation for this industry was first recognised by the Whitlam Government, which established the Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum to inquire into the oil industry. That Commission reported in April 1976, but the Government waited 13 months before deciding to reject its recommendations. In the 1977 election campaign the Prime Minister made another of his promises. He said he would ‘do something’ for garage operators. Yet another year was to go by before the Government took another step, which was the announcement of the so-called Fife package on 30 October 1978. That was slow progress indeed.

However, the Government was yet to show just how slow it could be. Another 16 months were to go by, until last month, before the beleaguered petrol resellers of Australia were presented with draft legislation for their consideration. It is clear that this draft will not be presented to the Parliament until later this year at the earliest, if we get it at all, and the draft covers only one of the four elements of the Fife package. What is more, the legislation will not be retrospective in its effect. This was promised in the Fife statement and is yet another of the broken promises of the Fraser Government. Here we have a case of a vital part of the small business sector waiting for action from the Government, going back to the very beginning of its term. We are all still waiting. What is more important, small businessmen are waiting. In this case, the petrol resellers are waiting. The Government has made a big deal of the case of Mr Laidely in the recent New South Wales oil dispute, which the Prime Minister wants to prolong. Where is the concern for the thousands of small businessmen who have suffered from price discrimination, from unfair franchise conditions, and from predatory practices on the part of the major oil companies? For every Laidely who breaks the rules and comes to the Government for help there are hundreds of small businessmen in the same industry who have lost their livelihoods under the callous and incompetent administration of this Fraser Government.

Standing out like a snag within the Trade Practices Act is the now infamous section 45 D, outlawing secondary boycotts. In recent weeks, in the Prime Minister’s newly adopted role as the passionate champion of the little man’s rightshow strangely it came to him- no matter what the consequences, he has portrayed this section as the enshrinement of legal protections available to small businesses against the economic might of organised labour and large corporations. That is the way he has sought to sell it to us. However, the Prime Minister, in his expedient haste to push the little man’s barrow, has been prepared to distort the thrust of that section, just as he has been prepared to gloss over any evaluation of its effectiveness.

I propose to deal with some of the salient facts, not the illusions. Section 45d is not intended solely as the little man’s recourse against indirect industrial action. In theory, it provides a legal avenue for all business enterprises, both large and small. However, an examination of the 30-odd section 45d cases that have been initiated in the Federal Court since the section’s introduction in 1977 reveals a preponderance of small business actions against trade unions. This fact shows that the section has turned into a little man’s domain, purely by default.

Where are the large corporations, all the big businesses, as the Prime Minister is suddenly fond of tagging them? Why have they been generally loathe to use the provisions of section 45D? The reason is one basic fact, that is, that litigation under this section of the Act is likely to inflame rather than resolve the dispute. The scarcity of large corporate actions testifies to that. Academic specialists in the field of industrial relations are almost unanimous on the point, and industrial lawyers concur with it. Even the Trade Practices Commission, which administers section 4SD, has repeatedly made it clear in its annual report that it lives uneasily with this section. The escalation of the Laidely affair, from a small dispute prior to the section 45D court hearing to a boycott threatening petrol supplies throughout Sydney and other major New South Wales cities, proves it beyond doubt. It is the unjust nature of the law itself that guarantees such an escalation.

Section 45d outlaws any secondary boycott the purpose of which is to cause substantial loss of business to the target company. The section almost totally disregards the grievances or merits of the industrial dispute that lies at the heart of the boycott. In the strictly legal interpretation that must apply within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, and with the legal distinction between the purpose and the motive of a secondary boycott, a union is almost certain to be found in breach of the law, without any weight being given to the reason why it initiated the boycott. Such a law, which guarantees the rights of one section of the community while virtually disregarding the rights of another, not only is unlikely to provide a lasting resolution to an industrial dispute but also positively encourages disrespect for the law and incites a breakdown of out legal system. Clearly, large corporations, with a relative bargaining power derived from their position in the market, can seek alternative means to resolve such a dispute. It is the small business enterprises that are left holding the can. They are in a no win situation, with little bargaining power on the one hand and recourse to a law that is almost certain to inflame the dispute on the other.

If the Prime Minister wishes to retain any credibility in championing the cause of the little Australian, the little businessman, he should repeal section 4SD and transfer the responsibility of dealing with the complicated issues of secondary boycotts to a more suitable body. I refer, of course, to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and I draw attention to the attempts of the Opposition to have that wise move adopted a week or so ago.

There are other areas of the law relating to trade practices which are of vital concern to small business, but which have been ignored or mismanaged by this Government for its own political purposes. The law relating to price discrimination is one of these areas. The existing provisions are clearly inadequate, as inquiries since 1976 have repeatedly stated. But we are still waiting for the Government to respond to these criticisms, either by tightening the provisions to ensure that they apply wherever a business suffers from discrimination or by abolishing the provision and replacing them with stronger laws relating to predatory practice. As long as the Government procrastinates on these issues the small business sector suffers. If the Government is dinkum about using the Trade Practices Act to protect small business, let it look at section 49 and not section 45.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of finance for small business in Australia. This is the area where the Government has really excelled itself in one respect. I refer to its making of promises but not keeping them. The 1977 election campaign saw the Prime Minister promising a reduction of 2 per cent in interest rates. He saidand I quote him again:

  1. . it is a target that can and will be achieved.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) made the same promise, and said that he would eat his hat if it proved to be wrong. He was taking a terrible risk, knowing the record of his Government’s promises. What are the facts? Interest rates are increasing, not decreasing. The increase in the rate of interest on overdrafts under $ 100,000- these overdrafts are the working capital of small business finance in Australia- of 0.5 per cent in the past month will cost up to $50m a year for small businesses. That is a massive penalty for small business. If we go further and compare the annual interest bill paid by small businesses with the promise of a 2 per cent fall, the additional cost for small business is up to $200m. In view of these facts and in view of the restrictions on bank lending which have been imposed by the Reserve Bank in recent months, the Government’s record on finance for small business is the saddest tale of all. There has, thankfully, been an increase in lending to small business by the Commonwealth Development Bank, but that does not alter the total picture. Let us look at the promises again. In the 1977 policy speech, the Prime Minister said that the Government would take steps to make access to finance easier. Another broken promise! There is still no institution providing equity finance, and the role of the Australian Industry Development Corporation has not been extended in the way promised in the policy speech.

The financial services provided to the small business sector in this country are inadequate because the Fraser Government has failed to implement adequate policies. Indeed, it has not kept up to its own promises. It is not good enough to wait for the Campbell inquiry into the financial system before taking action in this area. The Opposition believes that the Government should take immediate steps to improve finance availability for small business. This could be done by establishing a new institution jointly with the banks and the private sector or by using an existing institution such as the Commonwealth Development Bank to a far greater extent than it has been used hitherto. Such a bodywhether it be a new one or incorporated in an existing one- should specialise in the provision of long term finance and equity finance to small business in Australia. It is clear that without direct government initiative in this area, the small business sector will continue to suffer from inadequate financial support. Certainly, when Labor regains office later this year, it will take early steps to improve the availability of funds for small business. We will do this, not only for equitable reasons but because of the great importance, the vital importance, of small business to job creation and the general health of our economy.

In summary, small business is vitally important to our national livelihood and needs help. A Labor Government will provide this help. We will be upgrading the national Government’s role in small business, as this motion which I have just moved sets out. We will upgrade the Finance and Small Business Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce. We will be co-ordinating training and counselling programs. As I stated earlier, we had started to do this during our term in government but that has been thwarted- upset by the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government has left it to the States. Some States are doing a good job providing a role in this area, but it is a job which could be done much better. Other States are doing far less. The national Government should be co-ordinating work in that area. We will also be helping by easing the tax burden and eliminating discrimination against the small businessman. There has been discrimination, for instance, in the investment allowance against small businesses in this country. Such discrimination should cease. We will also be helping small business by improving the availability of finance. I have already stated that that will be an early task of the new Labor Government. It is for those reasons and many more which I do not now have time to bring to the attention of the House, that I urge that this motion be taken very seriously. I hope that the House will support the motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr Dawkins:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Mr SHACK:
Tangney

-In the last couple of weeks the shadow of Mr Leon Laidely has cast a pall of darkness over the Opposition and given the Opposition’s abandonment of that small businessman and the very principle that he embodies, it really is the height of cynicism for the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) to have persisted with this motion today professing support for the small business sector and the small business people of Australia. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to reply to the motion if to do nothing more than to reaffirm the Government’s acknowledgment of the importance of small business and the role it plays within our free enterprise system. I also wish to reaffirm the fact that we recognise the problems the small business sector faces. Those problems are certainly very high on our list of concerns. The honourable member for Adelaide cited figures and facts about small business in this country, and they are certainly not to be disputed. However, when we approach the problems of small business, I think we have to understand the nature of the beast. Firstly, small business is very diversified. Small firms operate in every sector of the economy and their problems are not homogeneous ones. Secondly, the small businessman is a keenly individualistic person possessing an entrepreneurial spirit of independence and a desire simply to do his own thing. He is not looking for paternalistic handouts and he does not want to be coddled and cosseted by governments. His overriding philosophy is one of self-help and a wish simply to be left alone- not to be over-regulated or over-assisted. His main interest is to be able to operate in a strong, stable arid growing economy. Thus, the overriding thing that any government can do to assist small business is to bring about a general economic situation whereby all businesses, large and small, can avail themselves of opportunities to compete and to grow in a climate of increasing confidence and prosperity.

Overall economic recovery is the single thing all businesses want, and this is what this Government has set about achieving. There are enormous pressures still- inflationary pressures, pressures on interest rates. But businesses large and small in this country have placed their confidence and their faith in this Government to bring about that overall economic recovery. It is not a confidence and a faith that we take lightly. How can we believe them, when we hear words from the wreckers of the economy, and the promises they make about the sort of economic recovery they hope to achieve? How can we believe them when we cast our minds back not so very far to the levels of inflation- 1 5 per cent, 1 6 per cent and 1 7 per cent- and interest rates far in excess of those we are facing at the moment.

Against this background, let me turn to the motion and look at some of its specific points. Firstly, it calls for the Government to upgrade the Finance and Small Business Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I would have thought that if there were one aspect of Government policy with which all small businesses are in complete agreement it is our determination and their support of that determination to curtail the growth of the public sector. There is no doubt whatever that the last thing they want is a large federal bureaucracy to pry into and oversee their operations. Anybody who has been in business knows well enough that businesses spend enough time as it is filling in forms and questionnaires and responding to Government demands and the like. In response to that burden the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) has announced the paper burden inquiry in an effort to alleviate these demands on small business. The fact of the situation is this: The Department of Industry and Commerce now has a branch of key people with good business experience and understanding who are concentrating their energies on commerce and small business. The Parliament certainly does not need to move in the terms of the motion which is before the House. Having regard to the Government’s policy of restraining growth in the Public Service, frankly, I consider, the Government considers and I am sure that the small business sector considers, that the present structure of this branch within the Department is adequate.

Secondly, the motion calls on the Government to improve the availability of finance for small business. There is no doubt that this question is of prime concern to the Government. It must be understood that the basic tenet of the Government’s philosophy is that finance for the private sector should be provided through private institutions in the capital market. However, within its own direct sphere of influence, the Government has extended the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank. To give the honourable member for Adelaide his due, he did refer to this fact. This extension has enabled that bank to lend to all kinds of businesses. It has removed a previous restriction which confined its lending to the rural, tourism and industrial sectors. It has led to a significant increase in the bank’s lending activity to small business.

One has only to look at the figures. Between the end of June 1978, when the bank’s charter was extended, and 2 May 1979, the bank approved 5 16 non-rural loans totalling $23.9m. To the end of September 1979 there was an 89 per cent increase in that figure to $38.2m. The great majority of these loans went to small businesses. These figures compare with 307 approvals totalling only $13m in the same period in the previous financial year. Of this increase in the value of approvals, 63 per cent went to 1 59 applicants who previously would have been outside the scope of the bank’s charter. The Government is aware, though, that despite these measures more may yet need to be done to ensure that the legitimate needs for finance of the small business sector are met. Honourable members are aware that a most significant committee- the Campbell committee- is undertaking a comprehensive inquiry into the Australian financial system to ensure that its structure and operations adequately meet the current and future needs of the Australian economy. When the Government has the Committee’s report under consideration, it will give particular attention to the question of the financing of the small business sector. It only makes sense that when we have under way the most important inquiry probably in the last four or five decades into the Australian capital market we should wait for that inquiry to bring down its findings.

The Government back bench committee on small business is playing a very important role in this area in putting forward to the Government its recommendations and its plea for small business finance. On 2 June 1979 an article was published in the Advertiser, a newspaper in South Australia whence the honourable member for Adelaide comes, headed ‘Plea for Small Business Loans’. It cited some of the suggestions that the small business committee is making to the Government. In fact, I firmly believe that way back in June 1 979 when the honourable member first placed this motion on the Notice Paper, he did so in direct response to that article. I think the point that needs to be made is that the Government is certainly conscious- in fact, very much aware- of the demands and needs of small business in the finance area. But surely we should wait for the findings of the Campbell inquiry before we go about setting up another bureaucracy, perhaps another bank-like structure. Surely we should wait until we can see in just what way we need to be moving.

Thirdly, the motion calls for the provision of more extensive management training and counselling programs for small business. The fact is that at present the Government is acutely aware that some of the problems of small business stem from a lack of managerial skills. This is the real reason for the failure of the majority of businesses which go bust. The proprietors, whilst they may have a gem of an idea, simply do not have the managerial skills to enable them to operate successfully and commercially in the market place. In recognition of this fact, the Federal Government, together with State governments, already has in operation an active joint Commonwealth-State small business program. Elements of the agreed program include the provision of counselling, management training, information and referral services. In line with this program State governments have introduced agencies or other points of contact to provide these services to small business. The Commonwealth’s role in this program is to provide support services by way of management booklets, manuals, training courses and related materials. The funds provided for these activities were increased significantly in the last Commonwealth Budget. The response of the small business community to this program has been most gratifying. Over 250,000 copies of the publication entitled ‘Managing the Small Business Series’ have now been sold.

Over and above this Commonwealth-State program we had the announcement only recently of the creation of two business information centres to be sponsored by the Commonwealth. Training courses in small business management have increased significantly and the referral and counselling services are in keen demand. This work is continually being improved by the small business training committee which, under the joint sponsorship of the National Training Council and the Department of Industry and Commerce, is surveying the needs of small business and developing suitable programs, which I mentioned earlier. In the light of all these examples of real practical Government assistance to small business, I believe that this part of the honourable member’s motion was either drafted in ignorance of the facts or was a conscious decision to forget facts, to deny the existence of this form of direct assistance which has already taken place in the small business sector.

Finally, as time is running short, I refer to that part of the honourable member’s motion which seeks to have the Government explore methods of easing the taxation burden on small business. I remind this House that the Government has already introduced a number of significant taxation reforms which have benefited small business enterprises and their owners. I refer specifically to the investment allowance, the increase in the retention allowance, the trading stock valuation allowance scheme when it was in existence, personal tax indexation and the phasing out of estate and gift duties. The investment allowance provided initially for a special income tax deduction of 40 per cent of the capital cost of eligible new plant and certain eligible improvements. After 30 June 1978 that allowance was reduced to a still generous 20 per cent. The TSVA scheme when it was in existence was of considerable assistance to small businesses at a time when they were suffering severe liquidity problems due to very high inflation. Since then business liquidity has improved. For this and the other reasons outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his statement in 6 May last year, the Government concluded that the scheme should be withdrawn.

The beneficial effects on small business of the Government’s decision to introduce personal tax indexation are often not fully realised. Certainly, what is also not fully realised are the benefits of the abolition of estate and gift duties. However, it is recognised that some 75 per cent of small businesses consist of unincorporated enterprises, including partnerships. Although the Government has increased significantly the retention allowance for private companies, it is aware that division 7 remains a very unpopular tax. This matter is continually reviewed in the Budget context. The private sector does not always appreciate the reason for this provision, which is necessary to avoid a situation where, in the absence of such a provision, owners of successful private companies could pay less tax than owners of comparable unincorporated businesses. However, as I have said, the Government will keep this particular form of taxation under close review to ensure that it does not unduly inhibit the expansion of small enterprises.

I explained earlier how I believe this motion came about. I believe that the honourable member for Adelaide saw the article in the Press in his home State and wanted to jump on the bandwagon. We saw this happen in the Western Australian State election when the honourable member came to Perth and made a great play about the Opposition’s concern for small business. Yet we have heard nothing about the Australian Labor Party proposes- should it ever be returned to government- in relation to such things as the resources tax and the flow-on effect that that will have on small business; the capital gains tax and what that will mean for the small business operators; and the termination of the investment allowance and what that will mean for small business. As I said earlier, small business understands that concern for it is to be found with the Government. The Government fully recognises the faith and trust that has been placed in it by the small business sector. This is faith and trust that the Government does not accept lightly. I believe it is a complete sham for the Opposition, very late in the day, to proffer itself as the champion of small business. I do not think that anybody believes that for a moment.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– I assume that the importance which the Government attaches to small business is evidenced by the fact that the only speaker it could find to represent it in this debate is the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). If the Government is serious about its refound concern for small business one would have thought that it would put up the responsible Minister- the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch)- to tell us exactly what the Government has been doing. Perhaps it is because that Minister is so embarrassed and ashamed of the shabby record of this Government in relation to small business that he has had to scuttle away from this debate and leave it to the most junior member of the Government to take part in it for him.

There is absolutely nothing phoney about the motion moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). The honourable member has had a consistent and long-standing concern for the problems of small business in this country. Indeed, the branches of the Australian Labor Party around Australia share that concern. In fact, in the recent State election in Western Australia the Labor Party was the only party to put forward a comprehensive policy for the support of small business in that State. It is interesting to note that one of the first things that the Government did as a result of being returned to office at that election was to take up one of the policy planks which was presented by the Labor Party at election time. What this really means is that the Government is getting increasingly desperate about its shocking performance in regard to small business.

The whole business involving Mr Leon Laidely is simply an attempt to divert attention from the very serious problems which confront the Government in the economic area. For instance, we had the abortive consumer-led recovery, which was going to solve all our problems. This was followed shortly afterwards by the projected investment-led recovery. When that failed, we were to have an export-led recovery. Recently we have had reference to a foreign investment-resources industry-led recovery. As the prospects for that seem slight indeed in terms of the enormous problems confronting this country, the Government has devised another recovery, that is, the Leon Laidely-led recovery. I suspect that it will be just as much a failure as all the rest of the Government’s attempts to overcome the problems of this country.

The honourable member for Adelaide pointed out very clearly that when the Australian Labor Party takes over the government of this country it will be looking very much to the role of small business in creating jobs. That is the fundamental problem which confronts us. The honourable member for Adelaide knows, as does everybody else on this side of the House, that in recent times overseas experience has demonstrated the very important role that small business can play in the whole area of creating jobs for unemployed people. For instance, in the United States of America between 1969 and 1976, nine million new jobs were created but none was created amongst the 1,000 largest corporations in that country. Indeed, two-thirds of the new jobs that were created came from companies employing fewer than 20 people. That clearly demonstrates that in the United States at least small business is making a very great contribution to the creation of new jobs. In Canada there has been a similar sort of situation. Jobs created by small business accounted for 27 per cent of the total jobs created in the 10 years to 1971. In the period between 1971 and 1977- that is, the next six years- it accounted for 59 per cent of the jobs created. In 1976 and 1977 small business accounted for 97 per cent of the jobs created in that country.

It is terribly important that we provide the preconditions for small business to expand and to strengthen itself in a period in which the economy is expanding. It is true that small business does need help. It certainly deserves that help. Small business in this country performs a particularly dominant role in the field of employment. For instance, 45 per cent of the total work force of this country is employed in small business. This is greater than the figure for those employed by large corporations. Large corporations account for 33 per cent of the work force, with 20 per cent being employed by government. This demonstrates that nearly half of the work force in Australia is employed by small business. That really is the issue at hand. The point which the Opposition is keen to take up, and which the Opposition wants to force this Government to recognise, is that it is only with a strong small business sector that we will be able to create the sorts of jobs that are necessary in this country. This is not to deny the very important role for the specific job opportunities program outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) last Sunday.

What have we seen in Australia over the past few years in respect of the failure of small business? We have seen that business bankruptcies as a whole have grown by 67 per cent during the first three years of office of the Fraser Government compared with the three years of office of the Labor Government. In relation to those bankruptcies which can be roughly apportioned to small business, the number has grown from an average of 1,200 during the three years of office of the Labor Government to 1,600 over the first three years of office of the Fraser Government. It reached a peak of nearly 2,000 bankruptcies in the year 1 978-79. As the honourable member for

Adelaide pointed out, this is the largest number of bankruptcies since the Great Depression. That demonstrates that a very serious problem is confronting Australian small business. If we look at a couple of other statistics which demonstrate the very difficult problems confronted by this sector we will find that 50 per cent of all new small businesses fail in the first two years and that 80 per cent of them fold up in the first five years. Clearly there is a problem. Businesses are failing. Businesses, particularly in their early years, are very vulnerable to failure. That is why some decisive action has to be taken by governments to assist small business, particularly through these early years.

I refer now to the situation in an industry to which the honourable member for Adelaide also referred, that is, the petroleum industry. It is an industry which involves literally thousands of small businessmen throughout the country. Those businessmen are in a particularly vulnerable position because it is in the petroleum industry that small businessmen are interfaced directly with six of the largest companies in the worldthe major oil companies. These businessmen have been greatly disadvantaged as a result of the activities of those large oil companies. If we look at the performance of the Government in this area we will see the absolutely transparent nature of the Government’s concern for Mr Leon Laidely, who just happens to be one of the people who operate in this industry, even if he does break the rules.

The point is that before the December 1977 election the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised to do something about price discrimination in the petroleum industry. This was in response to the developing campaign to highlight the very serious problems that confront that industry. It took until October 1978 for Mr Fife, the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, to come forward with what were described as the Fife proposals. It took until late last year- another 12 months- for some of those proposals to be incorporated in a draft Bill which I think can be accurately described as the Garland damp squib. The Fife proposals suggested that there was need for action on at least three fronts- in the area of price discrimination; divorcement, that is, getting the majors out of the retail industry; and franchise protection. It is in only one of those areas that the Government has made a response- a totally inadequate one- to the problems. It is only in relation to franchise legislation that the Government has made any move at all. The Government has left alone the most serious problems confronting the petroleum retailing industry- price discrimination and divorcement. We have yet to hear anything from the Government in a practical sense in relation to those two problems.

We are all holding our breaths to see what is the fate of the Garland damp squid, the Bill that has been drafted and circulated for comment. It has been savagely criticised by the industry. It will be interesting to see whether that Bill really hits the deck and whether we will have legislation through this Parliament by the time of the next election. I suspect that nothing will happen. Certainly, there is no indication that the Government will do anything at all about price discrimination or the problem of divorcement in the petroleum retail industry. Those are the very serious problems that confront this industry. That is really the test of whether this Government is fair dinkum about small business and particularly about those people who operate in the petroleum industry.

Governments can do a number of things without spending any money at all. One of the important things relates to this question of streamlining the collection of statistics and returns which governments require. This is not to deny the very great importance of having that information available to governments. One of the problems in planning policies for small business is simply the dearth of information. One has to acknowledge that there is the need for that information, but certainly there does not need to be the sort of overlap and duplication which has cost small business and business of all kinds so much in this country. In fact it has been estimated by the Bureau of Statistics that something like $600 is spent every year by every small business completing forms. Most of those are forms and returns required by the Federal Government.

The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has pointed out on numerous occasions that an early priority of the incoming Labor Government will be to streamline the collection of statistics and the requirement for lodging returns with the government to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that that cost to small business can be minimised. That is a cost which small business has to cope with to a very much greater extent than large business simply because many small businesses do not have elaborate record systems or large staff numbers who are able to complete and collate that information on behalf of government. The Opposition considers that to be a major priority. Another area where much can be done without involving very much extra expenditure is to attune those Government industry assistance programs to the needs of small business. Too often those programs, whether they be in the area of export incentives, industrial research and development or investment allowances and so on, tend to be attuned to the needs of big business. It is big business which is in a better position to take advantage of those programs, and small business, to a very large extent, is left out in the cold.

I will give the honourable members one example that has occurred in my own electorate. A gentleman by the name of Emil Jones has developed a distress beacon known as ‘see buoy’. The idea is that if these beacons are carried by people in small boats and if those boats get into trouble, then this beacon can be activated. It provides a radio signal as well as a visual aid to assist those people who are involved in search and rescue missions. It is a position-finding distress beacon. Mr Jones has developed this beacon over a number of years. He has built some prototypes and has received very great assistance from this Government as well as the State Government in relation to the testing of that ‘see buoy’. All the reports that have become available as a result of those tests have indicated that it is a very effective aid to those people who are involved in search and rescue missions. However, the only assistance that Mr Jones has been able to receive is a very small grant which is given under an invention scheme. He has attempted to obtain funds for the development of his invention.

The important thing to recognise in this case is that not only is this product a highly marketable one but also, in fact, its widespread use would save the Government many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In giving an example of what the Government spends in relation to search and rescue missions, I point out that an amount of the order of half a million dollars- it varies from year to year- is spent in relation to direct expenditure by the Commonwealth. Indeed, only recently there was the tragic loss of the Charleston which was sailing between Tasmania and Victoria. The cost of that one search and rescue mission amounted to nearly half a million dollars on its own. So here we have a proposal to develop a beacon which, if carried by boats such as the Charleston, would have saved the Government hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not only that, but also it would have saved the lives of those people on board the yacht.

What has happened is that Mr Jones has been totally unable to obtain the assistance he needs from the Government because what he needed to do in the first place was to form a company before he was eligible to receive funds from the Government. Next, he had to first expend the money on the development of this project before he could receive any funds from the Government. What this really means is that he is at a desperate disadvantage compared with larger corporations which, of course, are able to quite easily expend the money first and then recoup it from the Government. This is just one example where research and development programs are not attuned to the needs of small business. It is one area in which Government action is required.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-On behalf of the Government’s small business committee I take a lot of pride in answering the allegations made by the Opposition as has the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). I do not think that we ought to get into a no-win situation. I do believe- I understand that the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) was a chartered accountant before he was elected to this House- that we should have a deep concern for small business. We do not dispute many of the things that have been said. I understand that governments throughout Australia would like to be able to do more to make small business that part of the Australian economy which it should be. I do not think we should underestimate the situation. Without small business the economy of Australia would be an absolute wreck. So there is no dispute about that. But I do not think we ought to be looking absolutely at a situation where we come to a Government to provide all of the services and all of the finance that would be required.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are a person who has had a deep involvement in small business through the financing of it. As I look at persons in the public gallery I can see that three out of every four of them eventually will become part of small business or the private sector. I think it is important that we should be guaranteeing jobs for them in the future or providing outlets for them in the future, during this debate without slamming away at each other. The comments that have been made by Opposition members in this regard warrant consideration. Some points raised by them were: What is required by small business in the future; what are the records of governments up to date to provide those services in the future and what are the policies? The Government’s small business committee is a very active one. I am only sorry that two people who have led this committee, in the last three or four years, Senator Messner in the other place, and the honourable member for Henty, Mr Ken Aldred, will not be able to participate in this debate or participate in a similar debate which might take place in the Senate. A lot has been done.

If we are to acknowledge that small business is in a crisis situation at this moment- I do not acknowledge that entirely- I think we have to go back and find the cause so that the same mistakes are not made in the future and so that we can redirect the course. I do not think anyone would dispute that, if a crisis situation is the definition of the industry today, it had its birth in the period from 1972 to 1975. I do not think honourable members of the Opposition would disagree with the supposition that what has caused this situation has been the exaggerated claims for wages made in those three years and given to the Public Service. The increases flowed right through to the private sector and small business. What happened then? This led, in its own way, to a government which was spending money on providing the services, wages and materials which led to the inflation rate, which led to unemployment and which led to the high interest rates. If this is to be used -

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How do you explain the present inflation?

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– I will explain the present situation if the honourable member for Parramatta will give me that chance. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) mentioned the numbers of bankruptcies that have occurred in this country. I think that he would acknowledge that bankruptcies do not pop up at the time they occur. They have a tendency to take many years to evolve, and then the owners of those businesses who go bankrupt find themselves in that situation. The statistics mentioned by the honourable member for Fremantle are a lot of hogwash. I wish to describe the manner in which inflation has been doubled -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Hon. J. D. M. Dobie

– Order! As it is now two hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House the debate on the motion is interrupted.

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson) agreed to:

That the time for the discussion of notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 12.45 p.m.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– I thank the House for the courtesy shown to me. Before the interruption I was mentioning the record of inflation. I had been asked a question by the honourable member for Parramatta about the present inflation rate. Let us look at the record of inflation. In the years of the Labor Government the inflation rate rose from about 7 per cent to a peak of 1 7 per cent. On my recollection, the prime interest rate in 1972 was about 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent. It rose to 1 1 per cent and 12 per cent. As far as I can recall, the unemployment figure went from about 90,000 or 100,000 to about 250,000. The results of that rise are still being felt. We would not like to see in the policy of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or the National Country Party, the ingredients that would repeat that situation. Perhaps we should look at the wage policies of all parties and at the situation of public spending and the Public Service now and in the future so that this may not be repeated. Whatever government is in power has to be aware of the fact that a thriving small business economy is absolutely essential to this country.

Small business at the beginning of the 1970s was not what it was at the beginning of the 1980s. We are turning more from technical trades to service trades and things like that. We are getting big development in the country that is not taking up employment within those technical areas, or the areas that were normally taken up in the 1 960s. We have to redirect ourselves in this way. One industry in which this Government is particularly interested is the tourist industry. The tourist and service industries have the biggest capacities to absorb labour in the future. What this Government has done in this regard will stand on its own record in the areas of depreciation of buildings and participation in export incentive grants. However, more needs to be done.

I will take the propositions one by one from the Notice Paper. The development of the Small Business Bureau by the Commonwealth has been explained adequately by the honourable member for Tangney. Such bodies must be developed in harness and co-operation with the States. What is the purpose of overlap and duplication from which this nation suffered in so many ways between 1972 and 1975? We must not think that a central government knows everything. In the area of small business it is not the Federal Government that is being confronted all the time. For example, the State governments are being confronted by licence applications and local governments are being confronted by many other things. This is an area in which the bureaux should be functioning and in which they do function. In this regard I can speak only for my own State. About two years ago the Government back bench small business committee moved around the eastern seaboard consulting with small business bureaux, committees and organisations.

Such organisations are active. We have a counselling service in my State. We have a bureau with offices in various parts of the State through which guarantees can be obtained for loans from the Commonwealth.

On the matter of finance, I want to repeat something that I said in this House some time ago. We hear mention often about the Commonwealth’s role in financing small business. People often have visions of unlimited funds allocated to all comers with no need to prove viability or to provide adequate security. The aspects of viability and security must be paramount in any accountability. We have not been elected custodians of the taxpayers’ money just to squander funds on enterprises that are neither viable nor offer any security.

I would like to think that we still have a free enterprise system with private institutions- the banking corporations and insurance companiesthat will lend funds at a prime interest rate. At the moment the interest rate, 10.5 per cent, is not excessive in comparison with the interest rates of other nations. We have a Commonwealth Development Bank which, as has been explained, is lending more funds because the Government has changed the relevant Act. I would caution against certain suggestions that have been made about Commonwealth Government guarantees on funds. In June and July of last year I spent some time in Great Britain, a nation which is said to have one of the best outlooks on small business in the world. Its contribution is not in the form of guarantees or in the form of a special bank set up by the Government. It is in the form of providing counselling and advice- giving pamphlets and things of that nature to its people. It operates with a staff of under 100 people. Much can be done with little expenditure.

If we are to provide adequate finance we must provide an economic climate in which small business, big business, the farming community and every citizen in this country can react. I want to repeat some of the figures that were given in this House a few weeks ago. The 10 per cent inflation rate in Australia might seem excessive. If we take away from that figure the aspect of government-sponsored inflation, that is, the oil levy and the health levy, the figure drops back to 7.8 per cent. But let us take the figure at 10 per cent. The inflation rates of other countries were mentioned this morning. In Great Britain, inflation is running at 17 per cent. The inflation rate of the United States of America was near to that level. While the Labor Party was still in government in Great Britain the interest rate was 14 per cent compared with our interest rate of 10 per cent. I ask honourable members to compare that figure with the interest rates of other nations. The interest rate in the United States is 18.25 per cent. The United Kingdom ‘s figure is about the same. Australia’s prime interest rate is 10.5 per cent. In all aspects the best thing that this Government can do in providing finance to small business is to maintain that economic climate. I would like to think that the record of this Government is there to be seen on those aspects of the economic management of this country.

The level of taxation will always be a debatable point. This matter has already been debated by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who knows something about that subject. We should not overlook the fact that personal taxation plays a much more important part in small business than that played by company taxation and all the incentives. The personal rate of taxation for the businessman and for every Australian, is a lot lower pro rata than it was when this Government came into office in 1975. Certainly, it could be less. No one disputes that and everybody would want it to be lower. But let us be realistic. We have to be responsible. The personal tax rate is lower. Also, the investment allowance which was removed by the Labor Government has been reinstated at a level of 20 per cent. It is not discriminatory so much against small business but on the purchase of small items of plant. I think that that is what is probably meant. Any small business can take advantage of this allowance. The stock valuation, although it has been terminated, certainly proved a point when the inflation rate was higher.

I turn to the removal of death and gift duties. We must not forget what has been done in conjunction with the States to encourage small business as far as taxation is concerned. A lot more can be done in the field of taxation. This has already been mentioned by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins). On the matter of statistics I could not agree more with the honourable member. One of the exercises taken up by the small business committee was to look at and complain about the statistics. The Trade Practices Act introduced by the Labor Government is already undergoing a thorough review on the instructions of the Minister. The first volume of a report into that matter is now available.

I turn now to the oil situation. I totally agree that the small business people and service station operators are presently being pushed to the wall by oil companies. Let us look at the facts. A Royal Commission on Petroleum was appointed by the Labor Government. Only one honourable member- the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck)- made a speech on the report that was forthcoming. The Royal Commision issued a four-volume report at great expense to the Government. It certainly is not easy to come to grips with international companies. As far as small business is concerned I would like to see a contribution by local government in respect of licensing and by-laws. The payroll tax imposed by State governments has a crippling effect. As far as the unions are concerned, I believe there should be a more realistic approach to the wages problem, particularly in respect of penalty rates on overtime and the 1714 per cent holiday pay loading. These things are starting to cripple the small business people, so the unions have a part to play. This Government has a part to play in many areas of taxation. For instance, it should acknowledge that there should be provisions under the Companies Act and other legislation for certain items to be allowable taxation deductions, such as superannuation payments by the self-employed which will enable people to put forward their goodwill in a tangible way instead of the intangible manner which now occurs. There should be adequate provisions for allowable deductions for bad debts, long service leave payments and depreciation. The Government has a part to play in all of these things.

I come back to the fundamental point that it is of no use for a government on a handout mentality to subsidise and try to prop up small business on an artificial basis. The only way to do it is to provide a healthy economic climate in which small business can respond. I have had much pleasure in participating in this debate and I hope my comments are listened to.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-In the few moments remaining in this debate I would like to make a comment or two on the bleatings of my rival from the Country Party, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). It always amuses me to hear members of the Country Party telling us how this Government supports business. Of course it does. It supports the rural industries very well. We very rarely hear of a farmer going broke, because he gets a subsidy to keep him operating. But in respect of the small business people that we in the Labor Party represent, the fellow who owns a shop on a street corner or a garage who goes broke, is there any subsidy for him? Is there any propping up by Government to get him going again? Of course there is not. So the arguments advanced by the honourable member for Dawson are totally spurious. Let me tell you, Mr

Deputy Speaker, that I have been a small businessman- I guess a rather large small businessman- for 27 years. If the honourable member for Dawson is having misgivings about the Whitlam years, as a businessman let me return to the 1972-75 period at any time because at that time people had money, they had confidence and they spent their money at the corner store. They were not stuffing it away in building societies and banks because they were worried about being out of a job next week.

What this Government needs is a whole revamping of some entrepreneurial approach to business. The reason that small business is in the desperate position that it is in at the moment is purely because of the lack of confidence people have in their future, and this has been promoted totally by this Government. In talking about small business, this Government’s reaction to it and its cynical cry of support for small business, I think the statements it has made in the last week have really spelled out how it misunderstands what small business is all about. We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) repeatedly telling us, ad nauseam almost, about how this Government will support the small businessman Mr Laidely.

Let me examine Mr Laidely ‘s small business. He has a petrol depot in Leppington on the western borders of Sydney which ostensibly was to sell petrol to service stations in the outer metropolitan area and the country area. What did Mr Laidely, being a typical small business man by the Prime Minister’s definition, do? He decided that having a business- very big business with a multi-million dollar turnover- he has to have more, he has to have a service station in the metropolitan area at Canley Vale and he must serve it with petrol from the Leppington depot regardless of the effect that might have on everybody else. In an interview on a Sydney radio station last week a high official of Amoco Australia Ltd said that he with two witnesses had pointed out to Mr Laidely last July that if he persisted in the serving of petrol to Canley Vale it must lead to industrial disruption. Now the Government is saying: ‘We support Mr Laidely’. If the Government were really concerned about small business people it would be concerned about the people who have a small business but who cannot get any petrol to run it because of the greed of Mr Laidely. It should be worried about all the people who cannot get to work in small businesses because they cannot get any petrol in their car. I think that would have been a much more legitimate area for the Government to involve itself in than telling us how it will support this small businessman Leon Laidely.

The Government does not understand what small business is all about. All the Government is about is promoting of the monopolies of Australia. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) has pointed out to us in very clear terms the large increase in the number of bankruptcies in the last two or three years in small business. This has been brought about largely as a result of the Government’s lack of encouragement for them. It amuses me when I hear members of the Country Party talk about the level of inflation and of interest rates in the Whitlam era. For God’s sake, when are they going to move to the 1980s? Inflation has gone down only two per cent since this Government came to power four years ago. It is a great, ‘manager of business’. Let us have no more of this nonsense.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)- Order! The time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Parramatta will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting.

page 1331

AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT

Report and Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I table the report of the Australian Delegation to the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development held in Vienna from 20 August to 1 September 1979. I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development- UNCSTD- was held in Vienna from 20 August to 1 Sepember 1979. The United Nations has long recognised the pervasive influence of science and technology in modern society and, in particular, the contribution that science and technology can make to development.

In 1963, following an initiative with which Australia was prominently associated, the United Nations Conference on the Application of Science and Technology for the Benefit of Less Developed Areas was held in Geneva. The 1963 conference was essentially a conference of scientists and science administrators held to summarise the state of the art in the areas of science and technology that might be most helpful to less developed countries. High hopes were held that the conference would generate an easier information flow, which would lead to a rapid increase in the rate of economic development in these countries. It is part of history now that the conference did not achieve the impact on world development that had been hoped. On the other hand, it did create, particularly in the scientific community and other academic circles, a new awareness of the problems of development and of the importance of science and technology in the processes of development. The conference also led to the creation of a new United Nations body, the Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and Technology for Development- ACAST. It was largely on the recommendation of ACAST that the United Nations General Assembly decided to hold the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development in 1979.

There was, however, a major difference in the direction and purposes of the 1963 and 1979 conferences. The UNCSTD conference in 1979 was not intended to discuss the subject matter of science. It was intended to consider and develop the accelerated application of science and technology to development at the national level, combined with increased international cooperation in the context of developing country demands for a New International Economic Order. The conference also based many of its deliberations on the premise that the obstacles which prevented the beneficial and effective application of science and technology to development were not in themselves technical or scientific problems. Rather they were determined eventually by political, social and cultural considerations. In particular, it was recognised that an accelerated rate of development would require sufficient political will to make the changes that are necessary in order to benefit more fully from the potential offered by science and technology. In this sense the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development should be seen as another in a series of United Nations conferences on major development issues, including food and population, which have been undertaken in recent years.

Australia was not in agreement with all aspects of the deliberations of the UNCSTD. It is noteworthy that many of the major problems relevant to the application of science and technology to development have been under consideration for some time in other United Nations forums. For example, since 1978, discussions and negotiations aimed at establishing an International Code of Conduct on the Transfer of Technology have been going on under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

During preparatory meetings for UNCSTD, Australia, along with many other industrialised countries, argued that these specialised topics should be left for consideration in their specialised forums. The developing countries insisted that UNCSTD should attempt to resolve some of the long-standing differences in these negotiations, and proposals for this took a large part of the main conference document, known as the Draft Program of Action. Agreement on these topics was not reached at Vienna and the debate has been taken up again in the specialised forums.

The Vienna conference did, on the other hand, come to agreement on a number of issues. It decided on detailed proposals for building up the scientific self-reliance of developing countries, particularly in the area of making the most appropriate selection of technology, and improving the flow of information about available technology. However the conference was dominated by institutional and financial matters- issues to which developing countries clearly attracted the most importance. The conference agreed to recommend to the United Nations General Assembly that a new fund be established within the United Nations system, on the basis of a study to be carried out by a group of experts, to finance a broad range of activities aimed at strengthening the scientific and technological capacities of developing countries. The conference also recommended that an inter-governmental committee be established, open to the participation of all states as full members, to oversight the use of the new fund and to assist the United Nations General Assembly in all aspects of the application of science and technology for development.

The General Assembly had endorsed these recommendations, and negotiations are proceeding for their implementation. Australia supported the consensus decision at the conference on the establishment of the inter-governmental committee and also supported, in principle, subject to the definition of acceptable guidelines, establishment of the proposed fund. However, the fund will not come into operation for at least two years and, for the present, a voluntary interim fund is being established which will be managed by the United Nations Development Program, thus drawing on existing expertise and creating the minimum possible addition to existing organisational structures. Details of these proposals are set out in the delegation’s report. The Government is currently considering the question of an Australian contribution to the Interim Fund, but will first need to be satisfied that it will operate in a way which ensures its effective contribution to development in developing countries.

Perhaps one of the most important achievements of the conference lay in assembly of extensive data before it took place. Over the past four years, at the national, regional and international levels, widespread preparations for the conference were made. The Australian preparations included holding and funding a number of important meetings on aspects of development, drawing heavily on the contributions of a wide range of distinguished Australian scientists. They made an important contribution to the understanding of the development process in Australia and hence, it may be hoped, will benefit other countries that may face similarities in their development problems and that may draw on the Australian experience. Another Australian response to the objectives of the conference was the formulation within the Australian Program of Development Assistance of what is known as AUSTREC the Australian Science, Technology and Research Co-operation Program. This is referred to in more detail in the report at page 1 1 .

It still remains to be seen whether the conference will produce the lasting and beneficial impact on the application of science and technology for development that it was hoped it would bring about. The Australian delegation believed -in common with some other delegations- that the conference could have achieved more concrete results if its objectives had been less ambitious and if some of its participants had been able to curb a tendency to devote too much time to political and ideological issues extraneous to the main purpose of the conference. Nevertheless there was no question that valuable data was assembled; that the necessary process of analysis and dialogue between groups on the vital question of the role of science and technology in development was amplified and extended; and that a degree of momentum towards increased international co-operation in these fields was generated. These are no mean achievementsachievements towards which the Australian delegation contributed. I commend the report to the attention of honourable members.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-by leave- The Opposition welcomes the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on the report of the Australian delegation to the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development in Vienna last year. We would have hoped that the report could have been discussed last year but I note, in fairness to the Minister, that it was not submitted to him until a few days before the House adjourned in November. The conference was an important one. I emphasise that technology is expected to play a very important role in developing strategies. One of its most important roles will be that related to energy and the needs of developing countries. The Minister made reference to food and population. Energy relates directly to the question of food and shelter and thus very much to the standard of living. It is becoming the most crucial issue in the discussion of strategies for development in the future. Of course, technology is at the very centre of any consideration of how the energy requirements necessary for economic development will be met.

We are told that UNCSTD was not intended to discuss the subject matter of science and technology, yet such discussion in a multilateral context is becoming increasingly necessary and I believe that already there have been moves in that direction. The Minister said that although the conference had reached agreement on some issues it would have achieved more if it had been less ambitious in its objectives and had curbed the tendency to devote too much time to political and ideological issues. That is a bit strange coming from a Minister who has shown so much interest in the Third World and who only yesterday commended the Harries report. I draw his attention to the fact that that report says: . . faced with impractical Third World proposals or ones which we would believe would seriously threaten Australian interests, we should not only point out their deficiencies and register our opposition, but we should actively seek alternate ways of satisfying the needs which underly them. We should be resourceful, innovative and positive in this respect.

It is clear from the Minister’s statement that at the conference Australia was perhaps not resourceful enough. It is abundantly clear that we adopted our traditional position of being opposed to the Third World countries on a number of fundamental issues, without having anything positive to offer. The Minister said that the developing countries had insisted that the conference should attempt to resolve some of the long term problems, such as codes of conduct for the transfer of technology. I might add that the Third World countries also wanted to negotiate the conduct of trans-national corporations and the terms of proprietary information transfer, but Australia took the formalist position that these subjects were under discussion or consideration in other United Nations forums. We must ask whether this is being resourceful or innovative. Is it any surprise that the Third World countries wanted to discuss such subjects, which are at the very core of the new international economic order.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect is the attitude of the Government to the major outcome of the conference- a recommendation to form a high level intergovernmental committee on science and technology for development with a voluntary interim fund of $250m for 1980-81. This was the major result of UNCSTD, but Australia accepted it in only what appear to be grudging and hesitant terms. There is even some doubt, from what the Minister says, that Australia will make a contribution. Is that any way to strengthen Australia’s relations with the Third World? Is it the sort of policy that the Australian Government will continue to adopt in respect of Third World problems?

I appreciate that the conference was held before the Third World report was tabled, but from the Minister’s comments it would appear that he sees nothing wrong in the approach that Australia took at the conference. In fact, we can only infer from the Minister’s comments that the problems encountered at UNCSTD were of the Third World ‘s making. To be more precise, there is a suggestion that the more advanced developing countries tended to push out the concerns of the least developed countries. I refer to page 4 of the report. So it might well have been the fault of a section of the Third World countries that caused the difficulties. I might say that if that is the position- I do not exclude the possibility- we deserve to be told more about it.

In general, it would not appear that the conference was an object lesson on how Australia should deal with the Third World. I do not doubt that individually our officers at the conference performed very well and made valuable contributions. But what I am concerned about is the set of assumptions that appear to lie behind what the Minister said today. I doubt whether it does any good to repeat traditional attitudes towards the behaviour of Third World countries in multilateral forums, such as in the comment I referred to earlier concerning the Third World’s preoccupation with political and ideological issues. I suggest that clearly we need to take action which will be more positive and rational toward the positions that the Third World countries often adopt.

Finally, I advert to the fact that Australia cosponsored a resolution on women, science and technology. The resolution seeks equality for women as regards participation in social and technology decision-making and benefiting from decisions associated with science and technology developments. I commend the Government for co-sponsoring that resolution and hope that it will do something about bringing it into practical realisation in Australia. In other words, the Opposition ‘s one criticism is that it appears that Australia could have been more positive than it was at the conference.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. (Quorum formed).

page 1334

STATES (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill presented by Mr Howard, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to put into effect arrangements adopted at the 7 December 1979 Premiers Conference concerning States’ minimum tax sharing entitlements for 1980-8 1. In accordance with those arrangements, the Bill proposes that the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 be amended to provide that each State’s tax sharing entitlement for 1980-81 will be at least as much in real terms as its entitlements for 1979-80.

The Bill also extends the definition of withholding tax in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 to include the additional withholding tax on certain revenues derived from the use of land for rnining purposes, which came into effect on 1 July 1979. Under those income tax sharing arrangements, the States are entitled each year to 39.87 per cent of net personal income tax collections in the preceding year. The funds are distributed amongst the States according to relativities laid down in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1 976.

The legislation embodies two guarantees- a permanent guarantee and a short-term formula guarantee. The permanent guarantee ensures that each State ‘s entitlement in any year will not be less, in money terms, than in the previous year. The short-term formula guarantee ensures that in the years 1976-77 to 1979-80 each State’s entitlement is not less in a year than the amount that would have been yielded in that year by the previous financial assistance grants formula. That formula takes account of the change in the State ‘s population, the growth in average wages in Australia as a whole, and a 3 per cent betterment factor. The short-term formula guarantee was extremely generous in that it ensured over the years annual increases of about 3 per cent in real terms in the States’ per capita tax sharing entitlements. Because of its generosity, continuation of the short-term guarantee formula beyond 1979-80 would have been inconsistent with the Government’s policy of public expenditure restraint. Indeed, it would have placed serious limitations on the Commonwealth’s capacity and flexibility to maintain a Budget strategy consistent with economic recovery.

After discussion with the Premiers at the Premiers Conference on 7 December 1979, new guarantee arrangements to apply in 1980-81 were adopted. It was decided that, in that year, each State will receive no less in real terms than the amount it received in 1979-80 as measured by the consumer price index for the four quarters to March 1981 compared with the four quarters to March 1 980 in the capital city of the State. The new guarantee will provide the States with a firm basis for their financial planning in 1980-81. I would add that, on the basis of Budget estimates of net personal income tax collections in 1979-80, and without involving any guarantee, the States’ entitlements are expected to be around 11.3 per cent higher in 1980-81 than in 1979-80. On a State by State basis, increases would on present figuring vary from 13.5 per cent in the case of Queensland to 8.3 per cent for Tasmania.

As far as arrangements beyond 1980-81 are concerned I would remind honourable members that under the understandings between the Commonwealth and the States, the tax sharing arrangements as a whole are to be reviewed by the end of 1980-81; State relativities are of course currently under review by a special division of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Guarantee arrangements which might apply beyond 1980-81 will be considered when the outcome of those processes is known.

The Bill also proposes that the existing tax sharing legislation be amended to provide that collections of withholding tax on certain mining payments imposed, in accordance with section 128V of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, under the Income Tax (Mining Withholding Tax) Act 1 979 and which came into operation on 1 July 1 979 will not form part of the taxation collections in which the States share. The payments to which I refer are those made to Aboriginals or Aboriginal bodies or groups for the use of Aboriginal land for exploration and mining purposes.

Honourable members will recall that net personal income tax collections for tax sharing purposes as defined in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 excludes withholding tax on interest and dividends paid to non-residents, largely companies. It is logical that the new tax, which is largely levied on Aboriginal communal groups or bodies, should be treated similarly to the other withholding tax and excluded from the tax sharing base. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr West) adjourned. (Quorum formed).

page 1335

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1980

Bill presented by Mr Hunt, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Transport · Gwydir · NCP/NP

-Imove: ^

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members will be aware that there have been a succession of Government guarantees to Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to enable it to raise borrowings to finance the purchase of front line jet aircraft in accordance with the Government’s two-airline policy. I am still negotiating with the two airlines on the future form of the airlines agreement. However, in line with the recommendations of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review, it is the Government’s intention to retain the principle of two major airlines operating over Australia’s trunk network. The Government will therefore continue to support the provision of such guarantees to the Ansett organisation.

This Bill is similar to previous Bills in that its purpose is to enable the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to finance the purchase of its twelfth Boeing 727-200 series aircraft, due for delivery in September 1980. This aircraft is required to replace the capacity of earlier Boeing 727-100 series aircraft retired from service and to provide adequate capacity for the predicted growth in traffic until the introduction of the new generation of wide-bodied aircraft in the early 1980s. Approval to purchase the aircraft was given in December 1 978.

The proposed Government guarantee will be limited to $US 12.2m or its equivalent, which is 80 per cent of the cost of the aircraft, spares and equipment. The remaining 20 per cent is to be financed from the cash resources of the company. The proposal will not involve the Commonwealth in any expenditure. It will, however, create a contingent liability for the Commonwealth to the extent of the outstanding balance of the borrowings.

In accordance with this Bill, the Treasurer will be required to ensure that the Commonwealth’s interest is adequately protected by the taking of proper security over the aircraft, providing that the aircraft, equipment and spares are kept properly insured. A further requirement is that the aircraft subject to the guarantee is not permitted to leave the country without a security being given to the Commonwealth to the satisfaction of the Treasurer. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 1336

BOUNTY (SHIPS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Ship Construction Bounty Amendment Bill 1980, the Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill 1980, and the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill 1980, as they are related measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-As we have just heard, the House is debating cognately four bounty Bills. To list them in the order in which I am going to deal with them, they are the Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill, the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill, the Bounty (Ships) Bill and the Ship Construction Bounty Amendment Bill. The first three Bills provide for bounties to be paid in the respective industries while the last is designed to phase out the provisions of assistance for shipbuilding which applied under the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975. The Opposition is not opposing any of these Bills, but we do have definite concerns and reservations about some of them. It may appear that the Bills are an odd assortment of obscure measures, but the provision of bounty assistance to the three industries is of major importance to the future of manufacturing industry in Australia.

The level of assistance provided by these Bills is quite substantial. Depending on the level of activity in the industries, that assistance may reach as high a level as $20m in any one year. Accordingly, the Opposition has closely considered the legislation before the House in these Bills. We do not like seeing $20m of taxpayers’ money paid out in any one year without giving it the usual careful scrutiny that has become the hallmark of the work of the Labor Opposition. As I have stated, while we are not opposing the Bills, we are concerned about a number of aspects of the measures taken by the Government, and I will be raising these in my speech.

I want to deal firstly with the Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to provide bounty assistance at the rate of $50 per tonne of refined tin produced in Australia from tin concentrate. The annual cost of the bounty is expected to be between $250,000 and $400,000. The bounty is to be provided at the same time as export controls on tin ores, concentrates and metals are removed. Those controls are to be phased out over the calendar years 1980 and 1981. The removal of export controls is aimed at increasing returns to tin miners and increasing tin mining activity in Australia, and of course we support that. In the particular circumstances of this industry, which has a single smelter and a large number of tin miners, the use of a bounty is likely to be more efficient than export controls. In the absence of this measure, some tin miners may have been disposed to establish their own smelters, which may have been an undesirable development from the viewpoint of the rational long-term development of both tin mining and tin smelting in Australia. For those reasons, the Opposition supports the payment of bounties and the rationalisation of smelting by payment of such a bounty.

The second Bill is the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill, the purpose of which is to provide bounty assistance to penicillin manufacturers, replacing protection by Customs duties on imports, which is the way penicillin manufacturing has been protected hitherto. The bounty proposed is $38 per kilogram for Penicillin V and $29 per kilogram for Penicillin G. Limits for annual payments are $650,000 and $250,000 respectively, so payments up to $900,000 could be made in any one year if the total limits were reached. The total cost of the bounty is expected to be $4.5m over the five years, assuming that over that five years the limits will be reached. The Industries Assistance Commission has found no economic justification for the provision of assistance for penicillin production, which is a very small-scale and inefficient industry in Australia, although inefficient only because of the lack of economies of scale. Capacity greatly exceeds production, which is desirable in the event of a national disaster or international crisis. Continued assistance to the industry is based on these health and defence grounds rather than on economic grounds.

The Opposition agrees that a capacity to produce penicillin should be retained in Australia. Penicillin is manufactured by Abbott Laboratories Pty Ltd, located in Sydney, and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, located in Melbourne. Each firm specialises in different types of penicillin production. As such, the Bill accords essentially with the findings of the 1976 Industries Assistance Commission report on pharmaceutical and veterinary products, which stated: if the Government does desire to maintain a manufacturing capability, the Commission will recommend that this be done by reducing the tarin* on primary antibiotics to minimum rates and supporting the operations of CSL through budgetary appropriation or Abbott through a subsidy.

Both companies will be supported by a bounty. The Bill also provides for registration of producers and requires that the Minister shall refuse to register premises unless, in the opinion of the Minister, registration of those premises will promote the orderly development in Australia of the production of penicillin. This effectively means that new entry to the industry is likely to be banned. This is an unusual step for this Government because it is a major departure from the policy of letting market forces determine the structure of the industry. The Opposition has always realised that in a small country like Australia it is often foolish to allow the market to operate uninhibited in this way. In the case of penicillin, it would be very inefficient to allow a proliferation of firms in the industry where, as I stated earlier, economies of scale are important and do not exist at present. It is a shame that the Government, having accepted the need to intervene in this case, continually fails to do so in other cases where such intervention is clearly justified.

Another point I would like to make about this Bill is that one of the effects of bounty assistance is to lower the cost of products to consumers. Previously, penicillin has been protected by Customs duty which has meant that the price of penicillin in Australia was relatively high. Because the cost of penicillin is provided to patients under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, the Government has been paying these higher prices. Provided the reduced costs under the new scheme are passed on by chemists to the consumer, much of the cost of this bounty will be offset by reduced government subsidy through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Opposition hopes that the Commonwealth and the States adequately monitor the prices charged by chemists for penicillin to ensure that this occurs.

It is most timely that I have the opportunity to debate this bounty Bill which relates to penicillin because the whole pharmaceutical industry is very much in the news. It is one which is of great interest to me, as those who have been following some of my activities as shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce in this Parliament would realise. I have been making a point in relation to the threatened takeover of F. H. Faulding and Co. Ltd in Adelaide by a multinational called Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd. I have also been making the point not only in Press releases but also in questions in this Parliament of the dangers of the Australian base to this pharmaceutical industry being contracted still further by allowing Glaxo or another multinational company to buy Fawnmac, which is at present owned by the people of Australia, thanks to the Whitlam Government, but which is being sold by this Fraser Government allowing one of those multinationals to be the successful tender for Fawnmac.

Ninety-four per cent of this pharmaceutical industry is foreign-owned and controlled at this time. Good heavens, 6 per cent in Australian hands is small enough, but if we do not use such means as the powers vested for recommendation in the Foreign Investment Review Board, if we do not use the Trade Practices Commission, if we do not use the Reserve Bank, or indeed if we do not use the powers in government to stop such foreign takeovers of our Australian pharmaceutical industry, small though it is, the Australianbased pharmaceutical industry will be even smaller. It is an industry which we should be nurturing in this country for a number of reasons. One of them is that the industry is so reliant on research and development. We have a high standard of education in this country and a lot of researchers who would like to find their livelihood here. A lot more potential researchers would like to find jobs in this industry. Furthermore, pharmaceutical products are not heavy; they do not weigh very much and therefore are easily transported. Consequently, pharmaceutical production has a great potential for export.

We live in a part of the world where our South East Asian neighbours have an increasing standard of living- greater than any other part of the world. One of the aspects of that increasing standard of living will be a need for more pharmaceutical products. Australia could well be the base for such a wonderful, potential pharmaceutical export, provided we still have an Australian component to that pharmaceutical industry. But we are in great danger of losing that Australian component. Why do I say that we need that Australian component in order to maximise our potential as an exporter of pharmaceutical products? It is because if our industry is in the hands only of foreign-owned and controlled companies, those companies will not source that South East and East Asian market from this part of the world: They will choose to source the exports to that market from elsewhere.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Government’s record with CSL does not inspire confidence, though.

Mr HURFORD:

– I would like to add to what the honourable member for Lalor says. The Government’s record in relation to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the fact that it is putting Fawnmac on the market for a multinational to gobble up gives the impression that it does not want this Australian-based component of this industry. We have left in pharmaceutical manufacturing at this time virtually only CSL, Fawnmac, a company called Sigma Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd, Nicholas Pty Ltd and Fauldings, the company in my own city of Adelaide. Yet, as I indicated earlier, we have Fauldings under threat by the multinational Glaxo. I have given the information to this House as it has come to me, that the largest tender, as price would determine it, for Fawnmac also has been lodged by Glaxo. If the Foreign Investment Review Board recommends to government and this Government accepts that Foreign Investment Review Board recommendation that Glaxo should be allowed to go ahead and gobble up Fauldings and in addition to that, Fawnmac, that miserable 6 per cent in Australian hands will be even smaller. We will not therefore be able to maximise our opportunities in exports in providing jobs for Australian researchers in this pharmaceutical manufacturing industry which should be a growing one. Indeed, as a result of such gobbling up, the industry would become even smaller.

The next Bill we are debating in this cognate debate is the Bounty (Ships) Bill which provides for the granting of bounty assistance to the shipbuilding industry in Australia from 1 July 1980. It replaces assistance provided under the Ship Construction Bounty Act 1975. This Act was brought into this Parliament and enacted by the Whitlam Labor Government. The new scheme adopts the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission except that the rate at which assistance is to be phased down is slightly slower than that recommended by the IAC. The estimated cost of the bounty is $17m for 1980-81, based on the 1979-80 levels of activity. I have said that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. However, I have indicated that we have a number of concerns with some of these Bills and this is certainly one of them. In this case, we have a number of reservations about this industry which I want to bring to the attention of the Parliament.

The shipbuilding industry is characterised by a high level of international competition which has been exacerbated in recent years by a worldwide over-supply of shipbuilding capacity. In general, the larger the ship the greater the pressure of competition. The shipbuilding industry in Australia is conveniently subdivided into three categories. Firstly there is the category of recreational craft; that is, those vessels under 150 tonnes gross which have generally been manufactured on a production line basis and fishing vessels which are under 21 metres in length. The second category is that of small bountiable vessels generally between 150 and 6,000 tonnes gross and fishing vessels over 2 1 metres. The third category is that of large bountiable vessels which are over 6,000 tonnes.

Let me discuss first the needs of the small ship construction industry. This industry would come under the first two categories, namely, recreational craft and those vessels up to 6,000 tonnes gross. Those two smaller categories are both reasonably competitive in Australia. In relation to the construction of the ships which fall into those categories about 90 per cent of the local market in each category is supplied by domestic producers of vessels. Indeed, because the local market has been growing, the local industry has also been growing. It is pleasing to note that a small number of export contracts for Australian vessels have been won. There can be no doubt that there is a viable and competitive small ships industry in Australia, given current levels of assistance. But the current good health of this sector does not provide grounds for complacency. Many of the orders currently being met by the industry were those bought forward by the 40 per cent investment allowance which ended 1 8 months ago. There are now signs that the level of new orders is falling off sharply. In view of this fact, the Opposition supports the Government’s decision to hold the level of bounty at a rate of 2 7V4 per cent until 1984, when we hope the level of demand will pick up again.

However, the Opposition believes that the shipbuilding industry in Australia should be closely monitored to ensure that it is able to develop efficiently over the longer term. We are concerned therefore at the apparent decision of the Government to abolish the Australian Shipbuilding Board without taking steps to replace it with a body which brings together all sections of the industry on a regular basis. We are not committed to retaining the Board itself but we are committed to believing that something ought to take its place. Whilst we do not believe that the Board needs to be retained with its present functions, there is a need for a consultative mechanism which brings together the Government, the employers and the employees to do that monitoring which I mentioned earlier in this speech. The Opposition hopes that such an advisory body will be seriously considered by the Government. After all we saw under the heading of Penicillin in the second reading speech that in this Bill the Government is not only going to take the powers in order to manage the number of firms which manufacture penicillin in this country but, we believe that it is also going to use those powers to ensure that there is not an over-supply of firms in the penicillin manufacturing industry. So we believe that this Board or its equivalent should be retained in order to intervene properly in the Australian shipbuilding industry.

Another question that should be raised in respect of the long term development of this industry is that of exports. The Government has decided not to pay a bounty on the production of ships for export. However, it is essential for this industry that a continuous and expanded level of orders is achieved. I have mentioned necessary planning and intervention about which we on this side of the Parliament have no hang-ups. Promoting exports is one way of improving the level of orders and the continuity of production. We believe that there ought to be that monitoring, that insistence on continuity of production. I repeat that allowing some bounty to be payable on exports may be one way of seeing that there is that continuous production which in itself would result in economies of scale which would be of enormous benefit to the industry generally and to the Australian consumer of that industry in particular.

Australia has the advantage of having established advanced technology in many areas of small ship construction. It is close to a potentially large market in South East Asia. Some sales of ships built in this country have already been made to Burma. I mentioned the importance of exports of pharmaceutical products and of ensuring that there is an Australian-based pharmaceutical industry to realise that potential. Where there are such opportunities, as there are, for instance, in Burma, we ought to be using those opportunities to ensure that we have a continuous production line and a continuous use of our shipbuilding capacity in this country, at least in relation to small ships. Surely in these circumstances there is scope for the payment of a bounty at least for a few years, on ships intended for export.

Another point that must be made when talking about this Bounty (Ships) Bill as it relates to shipbuilding is that it would also seem desirable that the Government seek some rationalisation of the industry. I mentioned before that the Government has recognised the need to restrict the proliferation of producers in the penicillin industry. Can Australia’s small shipbuilding industry really develop with 14 active builders? At 30 June last there were no fewer than 41 registered yards in Australia. Many of these yards are defunct; nonetheless, it seems likely that to have a large number of builders eking out an existence with just one or two orders each is not a sensible way to develop the industry. What is required is a setting aside of the attitude that the market must decide. Already the market is qualified by the payment of the bounty. We ought to go that one stage further. We ought to be sensible and intervene in a partnership way with those involved in this industry in order to see that there is a proper continuous line of orders for a few viable yards in this country.

Finally, insofar as small ship construction is concerned, I should like to raise the question of the calculation of bounty. The bounty is to be paid on actual construction costs, but these would appear to include the cost of the imported content of the vessel. This may not be a serious criticism in most instances, but it may be important in the case of the fishing industry, where bounty is paid on the imported electronic detection equipment incorporated in fishing vessels. This means that fishing companies using vessels built in excess of 2 1 metres receive a substantial subsidy, whereas the smaller fisherman, as I understand it, receives nothing. Indeed, the smaller fisherman must pay the relatively higher price resulting from tariff protection in that section of the shipbuilding industry. I hope that the Government will look at this apparent anomaly in the bounty arrangements and will consider the interests of small business in this case at least.

I now turn to the third category of shipbuilding, which relates to big ships. There are no large bountiable vessels under construction or on order in Australia. Bounty is payable but import competition is too strong for this sector of the industry. The industry now has a much reduced capacity to build large ships. The largest yard is the New South Wales State dockyard at Newcastle which has a capacity to 25,000 tonnes. It is understood that the site may be too small to enable significantly larger capacity to be installed. The Vickers Cockatoo dockyard which is leased by Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd from the Commonwealth has a capacity to 16,000 tonnes. Carrington Slipways dockyard has a capacity to only 7,000 tonnes. The Whyalla yard was able to build up to 85,000 tonnes, but is now closed and much of the equipment has been sold. This yard or a new one elsewhere would need to be established to regain an effective large ship capacity. I personally would prefer to have reopened the yard at Whyalla. I know that the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis) would agree with me. He will follow me in this debate unless it is yet another of the debates to be gagged in the way in which this Parliament is being mismanaged at present. The skilled work force would need to be reassembled at great cost. A higher bounty would also be needed to attract orders.

It is regrettable that the Government has presided over the demise of the big shipbuilding industry in Australia. It is unlikely that such an industry can be re-established now, but who knows-perhaps there is hope that this can be done. However, there is scope for the retention of skills in the associated industry of ship repair. Australia now has in its merchant fleet vessels which are larger than can be docked in its commercial ship repair yards. This is a quite unacceptable situation. We must be able to repair our own large ships in this country. For reasons of employment, the retention of skills and defence, the Government should immediately take steps to ensure that Australia has an operating commercial ship repair facility which is capable of handling our own fleet.

Finally, I mention the Opposition’s attitude to defence ships. Australia has three naval yards- Cockatoo, Williamstown and Garden Island. Each has a large workforce. Together they meet the needs for ship repair, maintenance and refittings. However, no major armed defence ships have been built in Australia since the last River class escort was completed in 1971. Those ships were of British design and incorporated substantial import content. Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd was the successful tenderer more recently for a supply ship, and patrol boats are being built by North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd at Cairns, as the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson), who is sitting at the table, knows.

However, there is an urgent need for a program of defence ship procurement in Australia. The Government has ignored this need since it has been in office. As the Minister for Science and the Environment well knows, the Labor Government initiated the provision of orders for the Cairns shipbuilding yards. Our view is that the Government is not looking ahead far enough to ensure that there are more orders such as those given to the Cairns shipbuilding yard. It is not a government noted for looking very far ahead. I am not referring to just reordering the same class of ship. I am looking to those other yards which, unlike Cairns, have no orders of this sort at the moment. The Opposition believes that the Government should heed the advice of the Katter report on Australian defence procurement, which was issued in November last year. The report states:

If the naval shipbuilding industry is to survive in Australia, a favourable environment must be created for it by the Government. To provide a steady workload it will be necessary to identify, at an early stage, the need for generic type naval ships and to authorise their design and construction to accord with Defence Force requirements and Australian dockyards workloads.

My time is nearly at an end. I summarise by saying that the Opposition does not oppose these Bills but, as with so many other areas of this Government’s industry policy, it is clear that the provision of protective assistance will not be enough to ensure the development of a competitive manufacturing sector. The Government still relies on the discredited approach of nonintervention in the industrial future of this nation. This is contrary to the experience of every other advanced Western nation which has ensured that a partnership between government, industry and trade unions is the central tenet of its industrial development policy.

The Government continues to abdicate from its responsibilities in this area. It fails to plan in the longer term. It believes that planning is a dirty word. It fails to ensure that the structure of industry is most appropriate to Australia’s market size, and fails to establish effective cooperation between all sectors of the Australian community. These bounty Bills will be of great assistance to the industries concerned, but, as long as this Government’s industry policies remain, they will not guarantee the rational growth of Australian manufacturing industry. I hope that my remarks, my claims and my criticisms of the Government, will ensure that there will be a more active approach by the Government in ensuring that jobs are created in Australian industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr EDWARDS:
Berowra

-The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), on behalf of the Opposition, has taken the usual tilts at the Government’s industry policy. He has expressed the ritual vague hopes and general commitment to industry to which we have become accustomed, without providing any real specifics as to what the Opposition would actually do and without any real understanding of the Government’s policy. I enter this debate to put matters a little straighter in these respects. We have before us four Bounty Bills. Last week, or the week before, the House had three bounty Bills before it. There has in fact been a long series of Bills of this nature. They represent an integral aspect of the Government’s very positive industry policy. That policy involves a firm commitment to fostering a more specialised, larger scale, technologically advanced, export oriented, energy intensive and resource based manufacturing industry which is less reliant on government support.

The thrust of that policy, which the honourable member fails to appreciate, is essentially as put down by the Crawford Committee. It involves the ‘positive’ of a comprehensive industrial development policy-that is, export expansion, industrial research and development and adjustment assistance measures; I will come specifically to the Bills before the House in the latter respect in a moment-in place and working and the gradual movement towards a lower and less complicated structure of protection.

I stress that already there is a significant export development program which involved in the last budget more than a doubling of expenditure compared to the expenditure in the previous year. There is also a comprehensive policy of industrial research and development grants to encourage industry to undertake industrial research and development and thus be more innovative and able to cultivate markets in that way. The appropriation in that respect has almost doubled over the last 12 to 1 8 months. The policy involves then the ‘positive’ of this industrial development policy in place and working, and the gradual movement towards a lower and less complicated structure of protection. Let me stress that significant progress towards achieving a lower tariff structure, which is closely connected with the bounty Bills before us, has already been made through the tarin” review program. It is not widely appreciated, but the average nominal rate of protection accorded to manufacturing industry has fallen by about 40 per cent over the last decade.

Policy to achieve this objective of a more specialised, larger scale, technologically advanced export oriented, energy intensive and resource based manufacturing industry does involve other things than just tariffs. For instance, a major step forward was the commitment by General Motors-Holden’s Ltd to a world scale engine production plant producing of the order of 300,000 units per annum, thus achieving the economies of scale and low costs of overseas producers, thereby enabling Australia to participate in the world car concept and to develop a car manufacturing industry which is reasonably competitive with overseas producers. That move was facilitated by a decision of the Government to permit a degree of export complementation. It was only when that decision was taken by the Government against, I might say, considerable opposition from other sections of industry, that this project could go ahead.

One other element in the achievement of this policy is, in fact, an increasing recourse to bounties as distinct from tariffs. This brings me to the subject matter of these Bills. As I said, we have four Bills before the House today and in the previous week of sitting, but one, there were three Bills. These bounty Bills are an integral part of the Government’s policy to promote lower cost and more competitive Australian industry at progressively lower levels of Government assistance. I stress that this Government is committed to the reasonable and adequate protection of industry but within a long term context of lowering the general level of protection. I repeat that these Bills are important in that context.

There are a number of reasons and situations why the use of a bounty to assist Australian industry in its production and sales in competition with imports is to be preferred. One such case is where Australian production is a relatively small part of the total sales of the product within the country. If a tariff is imposed then of course over the whole of sales the level of price is raised, whereas if the Australian production forms only a small part of that total and if the Australian production is paid a subsidy, then the general level of price is not raised and that assists in other directions. That is particularly important where the product is an input to another manufacturing process, for instance, in the case where a firm is producing yarn which is then turned into fabric and subsequently into clothing. If the price of yarn can be kept down then the price of the fabric can be kept down and hence the clothing will be cheaper.

One of the Bills which was before the House recently was the Bounty (Polyester-Cotton Yarn) Amendment Bill. That is an instance where the payment of bounty fosters the policy of more competitive industry by keeping the costs of industries that use that product down and enabling them to produce more competitively against imports. That was a particular consideration in relation to that Bill.

Another circumstance in which a bounty can be a preferred method of proceeding is where, for a short period, an industry with low cost potential- the sorts of industries suitable to the Australian climate- needs assistance to enable it to break through, so to speak, in competition with imports into larger scale production and thereafter operate as an efficient low cost and, hopefully, exporting industry.

Such a case was the recent bounty accorded by the Government to the carbon drilling bits industry. The bounty in that case is accorded for a short period to enable that industry to be more competitive with imports. When that was combined with product development the Government was of the opinion that this should enable the Australian industry to increase its output and market share. That was an industry only recently established in this country. In this way it would enable it to realise its potential and present Australia with an opportunity to develop an area of high technological and industrial competence with export possibilities and the possibility of expansion from hard rock drill bits into exploration bits. What could be more relevant and important as we stand at the threshold of the great further expansion in exploration and development of our vast resource endowment? That was a particular instance where a bounty directly furthered the objective of promoting a technologically based potential export industry.

A further area in which a bounty can be usefully applied is in the context of adjustment assistance. The one certain fact of the industrial scene is that there will be change and the constant need for industry to adjust to change. This is going on all the time. But in some particular cases that adjustment is more complex than others. One of the Bills before the House today is the Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill. Here is a situation in which adjustment is required if the Government is to proceed to free up the general situation and remove the existing export controls on tin ores, concentrates and tin metal. The Government proposes to do this. But in that event it is highly likely that copper producers and particularly Renison Ltd would seek to divert supplies from further processing in Australia and sell for higher returns elsewhere such as in Malaysia. In order therefore, to encourage the retention of the processing of the ore in Australia by Associated Tin Smelters Pty Ltd in particular, this bounty is proposed in effect, to enable the payment to Renison Ltd of a price- which would include the bounty- comparable to that which it would receive if it were to export. In this way we retain this processing activity within Australia. The bounty is proposed for a period- the objective, as I said, being to assist in the process of adjustment during the period when the export controls are phased out.

So I am sure that the House will appreciate that these bounty Bills of which we have had an increasing number are an integral part of the Government’s industrial policy. This policy, I repeat, involves a strong commitment to manufacturing industry in this country. But it also involves commitment to change, adjustment to and development on a basis which is sustainable in the long run- an industry which is more specialised, which operates on a larger scale, which is technologically advanced as in the case of the potential for the drilling bits industry, which above all is export oriented, and of course, which will develop on the basis of being energy intensive. We stand on the threshold of a very great development in the production of aluminium. That is because it is an energy intensive operation. When that aluminium is produced it is a means of exporting electricity. We can produce electricity cheaply because of our abundance of coal reserves. The Government’s approach is not the wishy-washy, ad hoc approach that came through in the speech of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who preceded me in the debate. He suggests doing this or that on this point and hoping that something will develop on some other point. The Government has a firm policy of putting in place a comprehensive industrial development program embracing export expansion assistance, industrial research and development and adjustment assistance. With that policy in place and working, there will be a gradual movement towards a lower and less complicated structure of protection. What it is all about is living with the inevitable change which is occurring at an accelerating rate in the domestic and international environment. If we do not take these positive measures there is the danger that Australian manufacturing could become a backwater in an increasingly sophisticated and highly technological world.

It is necessary to realise that immediately to our north are a variety of newly industrialising countries where the potential for sales of the sorts of manufactured products to which I have referred is growing at a very rapid rate. Along with other advanced countries we could, and I hope will, find that our exports to those areas will grow at a much greater rate than exports to other advanced countries. That has happened in the case of the European Economic Community. Its exports to the newly industrialising countries of Asia are expanding more rapidly than its exports, say, to the United States of America. Similarly, this is true of the United States and Japan. Australia has a relatively small share in the exports, particularly of manufactured products, to those areas. If that share could be doubled over the next five or 10 years it would create additional employment opportunities measured in hundreds of thousands of people. In order to do that, we have to get these policies in place. The particular aspect which has been raised by the subject matter of the debate today, these bounty Bills, is but one part of the totality of the Government’s industry policy.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

-We are discussing four Bills today dealing with bounties. I want to refer mainly to the two Bills dealing with the shipbuilding industry, the Bounty (Ships) Bill and the Ship Construction Bounty Amendment Bill. These two Bills refer to ships of a smaller size such as fishing vessels. The alterations which will apply are well set out in the Bills. Some people involved in the industry feel that they can live with these changes. In view of that, the Opposition does not intend to oppose these Bills. The matter to which I wish to refer is the assistance made available for the construction of larger ships. It appears that this Government has no clear cut policy regarding the larger ships. At present practically no large ships, other than defence vessels are being built in Australia. Those 5,000 to 6,000 ton vessels are not particularly large. Our Australian shipbuilding industry has gone back quite a bit in comparison with what it was a number of years ago. The shipbuilding industry, apart from the construction of the 6,000 ton defence vessels, has come to a complete standstill. My colleague, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), cited the present position of the Australian shipbuilding capacity in respect of large bountiable ships. Apparently all we have now is the Newcastle State Dockyard which has a capacity of 25,000 tonnes. Vickers Cockatoo dockyard leased by Vickers from the Commonwealth has a capacity of up to 16,000 tonnes. Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd at Newcastle has a capacity of up to 7,000 tonnes. Mention was made also of the Whyalla shipyard about which I will have something to say later in the debate. It is obvious that in respect of large ships we do not have anywhere near the capacity that we had a number of years ago. It is quite interesting to see this change. If we look at the policy of the Liberal-National Country Party Government during the last two elections, we see how their position has changed. Its policy read:

An Australian shipbuilding and repair industry is essential to the national interest. The Liberal and Country Parties believe Australia must maintain an independent capacity to provide and service the relevant requirements of our commercial shipping and our defence forces.

A Federal Liberal and Country Party Government will pursue policies which ensure the shipbuilding and repair industry operates as competitively and efficiently as possible. In this we will provide a building subsidy to protect our relatively small but vital industry.

That was the policy on which the Government went to the people. The Government certainly has not stuck to that policy. It is a tragedy that we are taking this line because Australia is a maritime nation. It relies wholly and solely on its shipping lanes for most of its imports and exports. The number of Australian bottoms engaged in trade is very small. We have very few ships on the iron ore and aluminium trade where we are using the bulk carriers. In fact, we have had Australian built ships tied up in fjords in Norway while overseas ships were carrying most of our exports.

Other than when the Labor Government was in office, we have never approached what was considered to be the correct policy by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, namely, that 40 per cent of a nation’s trade should be carried in bottoms belonging to that nation. Australia has not reached anywhere near that figure. It is a fact that we have a situation now in which no large ships are being built in Australia. Perhaps I can quote from something that was said by an honourable member of the former Opposition. He had this to say:

In the United Kingdom and the United States there are similar schemes.

He was referring to bounty schemes. He continued:

The Opposition believes that the only way in which a healthy Australian shipbuilding and shipping industry will be brought about is through the provision of liberal credit and depreciation arrangements which recognise the special risks involved in ship owning. The nature of the shipping industry and the risks involved are such that capital will be attracted into the industry only if imaginative and flexible credit and depreciation measures are made available. Australia is the world’s only island continent. We are one of the great trading nations of the world. Our prosperity depends upon our ability to export our own products and resources and to import the goods which are produced in other parts of the world. It is incomprehensible that a nation such as ours should not be one of the world’s leading maritime powers. The annual cost to Australia of freight is of the order of$ 1,000m.

Of course, with present increases in fuel prices the cost would be considerably more than that. He continues:

The savings in foreign exchange and the acquisition of skills and resources would more than offset the cost involved in creating a national fleet A large proportion of the real profits that we should obtain from the export of natural resources is lost to this country because of the costs involved in shipping.

The Opposition believes that Australia is not only capable of becoming a large-scale maritime nation but also that one of the functions of the national Government is to encourage this development. What needs to be done in shipbuilding is to give the Australian shipbuilding yards terms that are at least equal to those of overseas yards. Give them a chance to compete.

That was said when in the Opposition by the former Minister for Transport in the LiberalCountry Party Government, now the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon). We can see that what he said in opposition would be done when his party gained office was never carried out. They were certainly hollow words as is the case in respect of so many of the words spoken by members of the Liberal and Country parties when dealing with the shipbuilding industry.

My main concern is what has happened at Whyalla. Obviously this present Government cannot blame the previous Government because the Whyalla shipyard did not close until just on three years after Labor went out of office. When Labor went out of office the Whyalla shipyard still had, from memory, three more ships to build. So there was time for a new policy and there was time for steps to be taken by the Government to try to save the situation. On the outskirts of Whyalla there is a big iron sculpture that was donated by Transfield Pty Ltd. It is in the form of a large ship’s rudder. It is more like a headstone on a grave. Anyone who looks over to the left will see the grave, that is, the slipways of the Whyalla shipyard. They are dead. Some of the cranes have been taken away and in a decentralised industry this is a shame. The Whyalla shipyard built a total of 63 ships of various sizes ranging from corvettes during the war to the large 83,000 tonners.

For years prior to the closure of the yards the people of Whyalla, the City Council, the business groups and the unions were all led up the garden path by members of the present Government. I can remember Senator Cotton coming to Whyalla for a particular launching when he was the Minister responsible for shipbuilding and what he had to say at the launching gave hope to the people of Whyalla; but of course a few months later their hopes were dashed. From then on the Whyalla shipyard started to go downhill. The hopes of the people of Whyalla were raised later on when the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence set up a sub-committee to inquire into the industrial backup that was needed for our Defence Force. The committee recommended the retention of the Whyalla and Newcastle shipyards as backup facilities for our defence needs. But of course that recommendation was never taken up. The report did raise the hopes of the people at Whyalla, but as I said, their hopes were dashed.

The Council, the local trade unions and the business people were very concerned. The Council thought that if it could get the South Australian senators to support its move in an approach to the Government as one body the Whyalla shipyards would be saved by influencing the Government to accept the recommendations of that sub-committee. As a result, six senators came to Whyalla, three from each side of the Parliament. They were Senators Jessop, Davidson and Young from the Liberal Party and Senators McLaren, Bishop and Cameron from the Labor Party. Pledges were made to the Whyalla Council that they would go back to Canberra and try to urge the Government to put the recommendations of that sub-committee into effect. I am afraid that the hopes of the people of Whyalla were again dashed because when attempts were made in the Senate to try to get the sub-committee’s recommendation adopted the three Liberal senators voted against what they had pledged in Whyalla. It was a complete turnabout and to this day it is remembered in Whyalla that they came here to Canberra and in the Senate did exactly the opposite to what they pledged to the Whyalla Council they would do.

The Whyalla shipyard is now a graveyard. As I said, some of the cranes have been removed. Whilst there is still a fair amount of equipment there it would take a good deal of money to try to put it back into operation. The Whyalla shipyard has a pretty proud record. It started out during the war years building corvettes of about 700 tons and finished up building ships such as the Amanda Miller of 65,000 tons and the largest ship ever built in Australia, the Clutha Capricorn, at 83,000 tons. When we think of our ore trade and the fact that we need large ships to cart the ore overseas it is a disgrace to have to rely so heavily on the overseas shipping companies to do this work. As I mentioned earlier, we did have a couple of reasonably large ships but we could not obtain enough work for them. They were tied up in Norwegian fjord and it is only quite recently that some work has been found for them.

It is a disgrace that as a maritime nation we are exporting minerals in the way that we do, that is, mostly by the use of large foreign ships. It is a disgrace that a fair proportion of those ships is not operating in our own name. The only move that I can think of that has been successful recently- I know that the people on the other side of the chamber would not agree with this- is the campaign that has been going on for some time by the Seamen’s Union of Australia to get Australian tankers on the Middle East fuel trade. One of the oil companies has agreed to put an Australian manned ship on that run. The Seamen’s Union is the only body that has had any success in increasing our overseas trade in our own ships.

The problems in the shipbuilding industry did not arise only in the last few years. Back in about 1965 the Government did not have any policy. It decided to call for a Tariff Board Report. The recommendations in it tookfive years to come to fruition. Inquiries commenced in 1966, the report was completed in 1971 but the Government did not release it until about May 1972. The Government did not put into operation the recommendations in that report until just prior to the 1972 election. The people involved in the industry were in limbo for about six years. I do not suppose one can blame the shipowners themselves. They were not prepared to outlay large amounts of money on capital equipment to modernise the yards, a move which was badly needed in Australia. They could not compete with Japanese, Korean and European interests which because of their modern equipment could build ships much more economically than we could. An updating of equipment did not take place because people did not know what the future held. The result was, of course, that the shipbuilding industry deteriorated further and further.

I feel that the Government must change its attitude regarding the number of ships we have on the overseas trade. It must work towards the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development suggestion that any trading nation should carry 40 per cent of its exports and imports in ships owned by that nation. I hope that the Government will give consideration to this matter. For many years it has been said that it costs too much to man ships with Australian crews. But labour costs for Australian crews these days are not such a big factor as they have been in the past because the biggest factor in regard to transport now is the cost of fuel. Although some Australian crews may be better paid than some overseas crews- not all of them- the increased cost of oil makes the question of labour costs less important in the whole matter of shipping transport. Having said those few words on the two Bills related to ship bounty on which I have based my speech, as my colleague the honourable member for Adelaide has said, we do not intend to oppose the Bills.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr V. J. Martin)

AYES: 72

NOES: 30

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I take the opportunity, in the Committee stage, to speak a little further about the Bounty (Ships) Bill, particularly about the provisions of clause 3. As will be noted, clause 3 of the Bill defines the vessels which are the subject of the bounty. A great variety of vessels is mentioned there. The Opposition is especially concerned that certain categories of ships are not receiving, in their construction processes, the assistance which is required and which has been recommended by joint committees and specialised committees of this Parliament which have regard, among other things, for even the defence of the nation. It is important to put on record some of the reservations and criticisms that the Opposition has in relation to the Government’s handling of the shipbuilding industry. The Government’s failure to support the industry adequately at a time when foreign governments have made substantial commitments in support of the industry is a case in point. We believe that more cognisance should be taken of the need to maintain and to improve the capacity of the nation to meet the challenge of future defence needs.

As was pointed out in the report entitled ‘Australian Defence Procurement’ which was brought down by the Joint Committee on

Foreign Affairs and Defence in November 1979, there has been a massive decline in Australian shipbuilding over the last 10 years. The report disclosed that despite the decline a nucleus remains to design and to construct naval vessels but that the industry is depressed to the point where it is only a nucleus that remains. In other words, the industry is in an extremely run-down condition. It is a waste of time for honourable members to participate in a committee dealing with the foreign affairs and defence of the nation if, after making reports to the Government, its recommendations are totally disregarded; and that appears to be the case in this instance.

The report also discloses that this nucleus not only should be maintained at an appropriate size and level of technology to ensure the limited objective of the 1 976 Defence White Paper in respect of local capacity but also should be expanded. It points out further that to do this the shipbuilding industry needs to have a continuation of work to maintain the skills already developed, to practise and to absorb areas of technological advance and to retain the expertise in the industry. If honourable members take the opportunity to go through that report it will be noted that the need to sustain and to expand Australia’s national capacity in terms of expertise receives very great emphasis. The Committee recognises the need to promote and to develop- I use the terminology of the report- a younger generation of ships’ designers throughout Australia and the need to incorporate the significant improvement in the shipbuilding production technologies in modernisation programs for the various Commonwealth-owned dockyards. I will read one or two passages from the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Committee stated:

Responsible and competent witnesses have assured the Committee that, subject to certain conditions and given time to develop their technological bases, there is no reason why local industry could not, in due course, substantially satisfy Australian requirements for weapons platforms at the higher levels of technology.

So it goes on. There are many important provisions in the report entitled ‘Australian Transport 1978-79’. I make a brief reference to one or two sections. I see that on page 95 of the report there appears the following observation:

In 1977-78 Australian Flag vessels lifted a total of 8.3 per cent of cargoes carried in all Australia ‘s overseas liner trades. 9.3 per cent of import cargoes and 7.2 per cent ofexports.

I think it must be a matter of very great regret to all members of this Parliament to see the deferential and subjective attitude of the Australian Government to other exporting and shipbuilding nations in the sense that Australia is playing second best in all these matters. A great nation which depends on its raw materials, its primary products and the like is now in a situation in which an infinitesimal portion of its cargo is being transported from this country on ships carrying the Australian flag. I notice that in respect of overseas bulk shipping the report states:

The volume of Australian bulk exports, 161.2m freight tonnes in 1 977-78, was an increase of 1 m freight tonnes over 1976-77.

We could hardly regard that as a significant rate of expansion. I believe the Parliament should note that, although we cannot disparage the purpose of this Bill and although the Australian industry is virtually saying that we can get by in a way that has been characteristic of the past, that is just not good enough. No matter what set of figures we look at in respect of Australian shipping manufacture, whether of small ships, cargo ships or defence ships, we see that we are extremely deficient and that we can hardly claim to be exhibiting a sense of national pride. If we take this attitude in respect of many other industries, we will find Australian employment opportunities continuing to decline, a circumstance which is very characteristic of the events which have occurred over a wide range of industrial activities under this Government.

I sound a note of warning. I believe that this Bill provides an inadequate opportunity to give a wide airing to the various aspects of shipbuilding problems which are confronting Australia. I believe there should be an opportunity for much wider debate because there are very great defence implications in what we are discussing this afternoon. Yet, of course, the Bill does not give us the opportunity to emphasise that one day Australia could be in an extremely perilous situation because of the failure of this and the preceding governments to recognise that in every eventuality, in peace and in war, Australia has to regard itself as a maritime nation and has to develop an element of self-sufficiency and selfdependency which has not been sustained sufficiently to this point.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I want to take up this question of definitions and to question whether the support of the shipbuilding industry which is the basis of the Bounty (Ships) Bill is adequate enough in view of the situation of the Australian industry. In the last few years we have seen a depressing collapse of the Australian shipbuilding industry. The constant theme of inquiries by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has been the necessity to strengthen the Australian shipbuilding industry. The constant pressure from the other side of the fence, we might say, is that it is uneconomic to do so and that there is no point in doing anything about it. I recall the discussions that went on some years ago about the purchase of a number of merchant ships. It was, said that the Australian yards would produce the four of them for $50m and the Japanese yards would produce them for, say, $30m. So on the surface, in a sheer cash situation, one would say that it was uneconomic to build them in Australia. However, nobody has done any research, and I still know of none, in which it has been shown that $50m spent in Australia is not, in effect, a better deal than a $30m cheque posted to Japan. I believe, along with my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) and I presume most members of this House, that selfsufficiency and a self-reliant Australia include a shipping industry which can always sustain our own shipping, keep us supplied with ships, and maintain its viability.

I point out to the House that the bounty excludes hovercraft. I know that hovercraft in the Australian scene are difficult to operate and, as far as I know, there is yet no part of Australia where they have proved successful. I am not sure that the attempt made in the Torres Straits some years back by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was given a fair test. However, it was apparent at that stage that the Australian industry was incapable of producing a hovercraft, and unless we include it in the scene the industry never will be capable of producing it. Hovercraft have a mixed record in various parts of the world. They cross the Channel successfully and quickly, and the British forces use them for landing on unwharved coasts, if that is the word.

That brings me to another point. On the question of ship design, there ought to be a bounty. People in this world make their living out of designing ships, even if they are to be built somewhere overseas. I had a discussion, along with my colleague the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), with the designers of our frigates in New York. They do not care who builds them as long as they design them. There is a potential in shipbuilding for a design industry, and Australia surely should be able to participate in that. If we were to include the design of ships amongst the bountiable activities in the shipbuilding industry, I think it would be of advantage to us. In some senses it might be a more fruitful or economic procedure than actually trying to build ships in competition with cheap labour countries. I ask that we give serious thought to that.

The most serious deficiency in our shipbuilding industry is the state of the shipyards of Australia. Again, I and a number of my colleagues on both sides of the House have been around the country looking at the shipyards. We have said to the shipbuilding people: ‘I notice the date 1913 on that piece of machinery over there. How is it that you have not updated it?’ It may well be that some pieces of equipment that are used rarely are just as useful when they are 60 years old as when they are six years old. In fact, there is nothing much wrong with being 60 years old; I recommend it to a lot of people. The fact is, of course, that the machinery is often uneconomic because it cannot do the same job as modern equipment, it does not fit modern needs, and all the rest of it. Their simple answer was this: We have never been able to see ahead more than one ship. ‘

Two areas of the shipbuilding industry are affected. The people who own the shipyards say: What is the point of re-equipping our yards? We could spend $ 10m or $ 1 5m and we might not get another order. ‘ I would not be surprised if that is not the basis of the final dismantling of Whyalla. They make the point that if governments would only say ‘We will place a continual stream of orders in the shipping area’; and there need not be many ships, they would soldier on. The people who work in the industry are also affected. There are constant attacks on the people working in the shipyards, and so they slow down. If they are working on the last ship, and there are no other orders, then they string out the work. I believe that that is another important area of shipping in which the Government has to participate. I am not very keen on bounties as a form of governmental activity. For a long while my own view has been that if one puts a third of the money into a ship one ought to own a third of the ship. I do not regard that as an impossible technique. Those two key areasdesign and the shipyards themselves- will fall by the wayside unless the Government comes into the act.

I suggest that in the reconsideration of this legislation and its whole structure, more thought be given to that. On the question of hovercraft, I am not obsessional about hovercraft but they are a new technology. This is an area in which we ought to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak, and an area m which we ought to keep continuous pressure upon our industry to produce new ideas and make them work successfully. Insofar as the Bill stimulates some pan of the shipbuilding industry, I think it is to be commended. Insofar as it falls short of the real needs of the nation, like so many things this Government embarks upon, I rather deplore its deficiencies.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– I will be very brief on this Bill, the Bounty (Ships) Bill. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has already outlined the Oppositions ‘s point of view, and there are just a couple of things I want to say. The first is that the part of this industry which the bounty seeks to support has had a relatively happy experience in the last few years, since the time when the Labor Government introduced the bounty scheme which this legislation will replace. In my own electorate particularly, the industry has flourished. Within the Fremantle electorate, three shipyards are involved in building ships of the size which are eligible for the bounty, and all those shipyards are happy with the Government’s proposals on this occasion. In fact, one of the shipyards is engaged in exporting vessels to South-East Asia and the others are all enjoying a satisfactory level of work.

I raise one matter which relates to the administration of the bounty scheme. The proposal involves the transfer of the administration of the bounty scheme from the Department of Industry and Commerce to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. In essence, the revised arrangements mean that the bounty will be paid on the production costs of the ships built in Australia. This will not require the Department to call tenders or to assess tenders to determine which is the lowest tender and it will not require the oversight of construction. The basis will be the accounting records specifying the cost of construction of vessels, which will be submitted. These will be examined and checked and bounty paid as a proportion of the cost of the construction verified in that way. There will be a winding down of the existing scheme as the new scheme builds up and so, for a while, both departments will be involved. At some time in the future, there will be a necessity to reduce the number of staff in the Department of Industry and Commerce simply because the people in that section will no longer have to do the job they are now doing. It is proposed that a plan be developed to facilitate the redeployment of those people.

I agree with any proposal to streamline the bureaucracy and the scrutiny that is necessary in relation to the administration of any scheme. The fact that this will involve fewer public servants in the administration of the scheme is a good thing. However, a couple of aspects of this have to be borne in mind. The most important is that some consideration has to be given to the future of those people who have been involved in administering the old scheme in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I do not think it is enough to say, as I understand has been said, that it is possible that the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs may think that some people in the section have certain expertise for which it is looking. It seems to me that much greater attention has to be given to the expertise that has obviously been built up in the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to the administration of the scheme that is now being replaced. One has to remember that even though there is not going to be the necessity to scrutinise as rigorously as was the case under the old scheme, there still will be a need for the public purse to be protected in some way. This is not to suggest that anyone in the industry is likely to try to defraud the Government. But at the same time, it will be necessary to ensure that the payments which are claimed as part of the cost of construction of a vessel were in fact incurred by the shipbuilder and more importantly, were incurred in relation to a vessel eligible for bounty and not for other vessels or for other activities which might be engaged in by that shipbuilder.

I will give honourable members an example of the way in which the cost to the Government can be increased substantially as a result of a minor increase in the claims submitted by the shipbuilders. For example, accounts may be submitted showing 100,000 man-hours for boilermakers involved in hull construction but 2,000 or more man-hours could easily be used on ineligible projects- such as on non-bounty vessels of a smaller size. That simple increase of 2,000 hours in 100,000 hours would increase the amount of bounty payable by about $8,000. So I think it is important for us to recognise that even though the primary consideration must be the streamlining of the bureaucracy in the administration of the scheme and the savings which will accrue to the Government as a result of having fewer people involved, the expertise that has been built up will be essential if this scheme is to be administered properly. It seems to me that this is not a question of interfering unnecessarily in the activities of the shipbuilders but rather a question of just having a system in which everybody can have total confidence.

I would simply say that whilst we welcome this scheme and believe it will be of assistance, at least to that part of the industry it seeks to support- of course, it will have particular benefit in my own electorate- we have to give consideration to the way in which this new scheme will be administered to make sure that the bounty is not paid on ineligible projects and that the claims which are lodged are properly substantiated. I think that in one sense the Government can save money by reducing the number of staff but if it does not have an adequately expert group of people administering the scheme it can find that it is up for greater payments in terms of the bounty. I simply make a plea to the Government to give greater consideration than I believe has been given up until now for the people who have been involved in the Department of Industry and Commerce and to make every effort to ensure that these people are redeployed elsewhere in the Public Service.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Newman)- by leaveread a third time.

page 1349

SHIP CONSTRUCTION BOUNTY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 March, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Newman) read a third time.

page 1349

BOUNTY (REFINED TIN) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 March, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Newman) read a third time.

page 1350

BOUNTY (PENICILLIN) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Newman) read a third time.

page 1350

HONEY RESEARCH BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Productivity · Bass · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill, the Honey Export Charge Amendment Bill 1 980, the Honey Levy (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1980, the Honey Levy (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1980 and the Honey Industry Amendment Bill 1980 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering those measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– It is not my intention to delay the House for any great length of time on these Bills. They are important to the honey industry and the Opposition does not oppose them. They are in line with a considerable number of similar research funding Bills which have passed through this Parliament over a considerable number of years. The results of those have apparently been satisfactory to primary producers, as objections to further extensions of that particular program do not appear to exist. But there is one personal observation I would make. In some instances the available funds for research could well be higher. This might be beneficial not only to the industry itself but also to the nation. In this case, I think that an amount of the order of $50,000 a year may well be less than is desirable for adequate research propects to be funded. It could be also that if the funds available for research are less than those which are necessary for an adequate program they would serve a less than significant purpose. In some industries research funds would be very substantial because of the large turnover and the large volume of funds which would be going into the trusts which administer the funds. In other industries which are equally important but not, at this stage anyhow, as financially affluent, the amount of funds could be lower than is desirable. The endowment of a research grant at a university or something of that nature is not necessarily the way in which the incomes, the qualities and the competitiveness of Australian products are improved.

We produce a very high standard of honey. It is a well received product for which there is a ready market outside Australia and for which premium prices are paid. It is to be hoped that the investment in research that is envisaged in this Bill will ensure that that situation will not only continue but also improve and that producers’ returns will reflect the investment that they are prepared to make and the investment which the taxpayer will make through these Bills on behalf of the general populace of Australia. The Opposition does not oppose these Bills. The honourable member for Riverina (Mr FitzPatrick), an honourable member who represents a very substantial proportion of Australia’s bee farmers, will make some further remarks on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-The interest of the countryman in the honey bee is well known and understood. I am glad that following me in this debate will be one of the experts in the bee industry in South Australia, an area where there are very famous and well known honey farmers.

Right from ancient times honey was the only sweetener. Those honourable members with any knowledge of history would appreciate that even today one of the major exporters of honey is still the Yemen and the Hadramawt in Arabia. There they keep their bees as they were kept during the time of the Queen of Sheba- in great drainpipes. Those who are interested should pay a visit to the Hadramawt and see beekeeping in its ancient form. Those of us in Australia who have a genuine love for the countryside above all are anxious for the bee and for what it does as we are anxious for the preservation of natural life and all the natural things that we find in this beautiful continent, some of which are exceptionally rare.

There are a few mundane but important facts that should be mentioned in a debate of this sort. Australia is one of the top 10 producers of honey in the world. According to our latest statistics it produced 18,538 tonnes in 1978-79, which production was valued at $ 13.5m. Not only the honey, but also the beeswax, is valuable. The beeswax produced in that period was valued at $1,100,000. I say to those who do not know where beeswax is used that it is time they found out. There is no doubt that the greatest honey producing State in Australia is New South Wales. It has 766 apiarists producing 7,444 tonnes of honey a year. So, too, are famous the beekeepers in Western Australia ano Victoria. The population of bees in Australia has remained fairly static. It is interesting to note that many more amateurs are coming into the field and showing an interest in beekeeping. This is essential. It is essential too, that the understanding of insect life and of beekeeping is taught in our schools. It is perhaps sad to note that at present we do not have a national institute for beekeeping in the whole of Australia. There are well known institutes in the various States but we have not yet founded a major research institute of our own. For this reason and for many other reasons I support the idea of imposing a research levy.

There are many facets of the life of the bee and the cycle of the bee which are still thoroughly misunderstood or not understood at all. Secondly, it is absolutely essential that more research is undertaken into the immediate countermeasures for anybody who is allergic to bee stings and is stung. The other worrying problem has been the use of pesticides in large quantities, especially for the eradication of the locust and other insects. Care must be taken that when insecticides are used on a large scale their use does not affect the bee population or the bee farms in the area. It is therefore sound policy for beekeepers to approach landlords, orchardists and those who grow sunflower seeds, lucerne or other such crops and make certain that in their contracts to allow the bees to remain on their land they give an undertaking that no toxic sprays will be used during the time that the bees are in or around the area.

As I am the honorary parliamentary beekeeper, it is perhaps interesting for the House to note how our own bees are doing in the parliamentary gardens. Those who were fortunate a week or two ago to be sitting in the dining room- they may have been working on the staff of the House or have happened to be in the dining room at the time- would have tasted some of the honey produced in the gardens of Parliament House. This is not the first time that bees have been kept in the gardens of Parliament

House. Indeed, the father of the Clerk of the House was the first person to keep bees in the precincts of Parliament House and in this area of Canberra. Indeed, he can remember in those days going with his father to take off the honey. He has always had an interest in the beekeeping that I have been doing in the parliamentary gardens. The bees came to Canberra in an extraordinary way. I went to Mr Speaker to inquire whether he would allow them to be kept in the parliamentary gardens. He sought the advice of the Clerk of the House to ascertain exactly what I really intended. However, the Clerk of the House turned to Mr Speaker and pointed out that the day that the request came to him was 1 April. I did not receive a reply from Mr Speaker concerning my wish to keep bees, but I brought them to Canberra and put them in the parliamentary gardens. To this day, I am not quite certain who enjoyed the April Fool.

Beekeeping is handed down through families. One can remember in my early childhood the tremendous ringing of a brass bell. Grandfather would put on his white coat and black bee veil and all the children of our family would be hurried into the house. Mother would say: ‘Inside you go. Grandfather is collecting his bees’. This shows the sort of misunderstanding that town people can have of a person who is going to collect a swarm of bees. For those who are familiar with beekeeping, when the bees are actually in their swarm and hanging from a tree they can be taken very easily. It is at that time of all times that they are the least dangerous. So if people, when they see a swarm of bees, remain calm and ring the local police they are sure to find a reasonable beekeeper or somebody who will remove the bees. The great thing to do is to remove from the mind of society fear of the bee and to implant into it the love of the bee. After all, how can nature survive without cross pollination?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What about a foul brood?

Mr YATES:

– That is a very serious thing. I am very glad that the honourable member for Hindmarsh shows his knowledge of the matter. Of course, in the case of unattended beehives or bee colonies which have no apiarist in charge of them or which are looked after by people with no understanding of bees, a foul brood may occur. This happens when the lavae, the small bees, fail to mature properly. The whole hive dies and goes rotten. I note that the Minister for Productivity (Mr Newman) is at the table. I know that his family are great producers of the leatherwood honey of Tasmania which is very famous indeed. I am sure that all Tasmanians want to pay tribute to him as a collector of the leatherwood honey. As to the remark of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), it is true that with a lack of inspectors and with a lack of proper co-ordination, foreign diseases can come in and infect the hives as badly as foot and mouth disease affects cattle.

I was going to read the classical story in Latin of the bees which appear in Georgics IV, but it would probably help only the honourable member for Hindmarsh, who knows his georgics and who knows of Vergilius Maro and the wonderful statue of him which stands in the city of Urbino. His description of the bees in classical terms was almost exactly correct. His only mistake was that he called the queen a king. Those who want to keep bees and want to understand how to keep bees should read Georgics IV. If they follow the instruction in it, they will do well. As my friend the honourable drone- I mean the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier)- is sitting on my left and as he is the Government Whip, I shall not detain the House any further. For those who are interested in ascertaining how elegant, erudite and fascinating speeches in the House are always cut short, I dedicate a small poem to my friend the honourable member for Bendigo. It goes like this:

A little bee sat on a wall.

The bee said: ‘Buzz’

And that was all.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (4.27)-I congratulate the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) on his contribution to the debate. It is quite obvious that he takes a keen interest in the honey industry. He not only has a high regard for the honey industry but also realises the value of the honey industry to our agricultural industry. There is no doubt that the honey industry and the bees are worth many millions of dollars each year to our agricultural industry. I support the honey Bills not only because I have many beekeepers in my electorate but also because some of my very close friends are beekeepers. The main Bill, the Honey Research Bill, sets out to draw up a scheme which is similar to other rural research schemes, which I think we can all say have been a great benefit to rural Australia. The schemes have served the rural industry well. For this reason, the Opposition supports the Bills. We are also conscious of the fact that they are widely supported by the honey industry.

The honey industry has asked that these Bills be introduced to permit, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) pointed out in his second reading speech, an expansion program which the industry considers essential for its future progress. It is heartening to know that it is considered that there will be progress in the honey industry. There is no doubt that the honey industry has made great progress over the years. I believe that for this reason the Government and the Parliament should endeavour to cooperate with the honey industry. I have received correspondence from the New South Wales Apiarists Association which states:

In 1976 Australia was in the unique position of being the 4th largest producer of honey products in the World and this had only been achieved by hard work on the part of the Honey Board with the stabilisation of prices.

Unfortunately, during the last couple of years, due to the drought conditions that have existed, there has been some reduction in the total crop. The same letter informed me that in 1975-76 the export value of the honey products was $1 1.5m. The honey industry has had to face many problems over the years. The present non-statutory research arrangement, although quite a good scheme, fell short of what was required and never produced the full amount of knowledge required to handle these problems. Nevertheless, the indications were that it was of some value and that it should be expanded into a proper research scheme and one which would play a big part in honey production and the handling of the problems of bee diseases, pesticide hazards, nutrition and bee breeding, as the honourable member for Holt has pointed out.

I want to deal with one of the biggest problems that the honey industry has bumped up against, that is, the problem of Paterson’s curse. I have already raised this matter in the Parliament and placed questions about it on the Notice Paper. The Australian Agricultural Council resolved last year to begin a program of biological control of Paterson’s curse. Only one State voted against this decision, but the apiarist organisations and the Honey Board were strongly opposed to it. It is a well known fact that honey derived from Paterson’s curse brings higher prices. Honey derived from Paterson’s curse is the so-called white honey, which is usually blended with darker honey for export. It is available in early summer and spring, when there are few other suitable flowering plants. That information is contained in the letter from the New South Wales Apiarists Association.

As many beekeepers in my electorate are concerned about the biological control, I believe that there is some responsibility on the Government and other reponsible bodies to outline or publish clear guidelines. With that in mind and prompted by the beekeepers in my electorate, I directed a question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industry on 26 February. I asked:

What progress has been made on the program of biological control of Paterson ‘s curse.

In which areas of the Electoral Division of Riverina is it intended to release insects.

They are the question that concern people iri my electorate. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry, replied:

The CSIRO has undertaken a series of tests on the insects to be used in the control program. They have been obtained from overseas, quarantine requirements have been met and the multiplication process is now underway.

It is hoped that the first of the four species being used will be ready for general distribution during 1980. It is possible that the remaining species could also be released during 1980 but because of their longer life cycle, there could be delays in building up sufficient numbers.

The Minister went on to say:

Details regarding the location of sites in the Riverina for field release have not yet been determined. At the appropriate time these will be decided by consultation between the CSIRO and the NSW Department of Agriculture.

This is an important point which people want to know about. I have been asked not to take too long in speaking to the Bills, but before I resume my seat I want to refer to an article in the National Farmer of December 1979 by Brian Chatterton on just how serious the beekeepers and other people regard this matter. One paragraph of the article states:

Naturally the beekeepers have most to lose by the diminution of Salvation Jane, but a large group of Northern graziers and townspeople back them very solidly for their own reasons. Their properties are drought-prone areas and have many seasons in which ‘false breaks’ occur, so that their normal pasture practice is to rely on Salvation Jane for drought fodder and as a later, later summer saviour. The large areas of blue hillside are welcomed in late spring and early summer by people in the North who see Salvation Jane as stock feed, honey fodder and tourist revenue.

I ask that the House give serious consideration to the control or the release of these biological insects. I congratulate the Government for introducing the Bills. I hope that at some other time we can have further debates in this House on the honey industry. There is no doubt that it is an expanding industry and one that should be given more consideration.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-The honey industry is one of many small but interesting and valuable agricultural industries that only, on occasions like this, comes to the attention of Parliament and perhaps to the public generally. The horticultural sector provides a number of similar examples of these small but interesting industries. There are the various berry industries, the mushroom industry, the flower industry, the avacado industry and so on. These small agricultural industries are overlooked by governments and by national farmer organisations and even by the newly established National Farmers Federation. These industries are disadvantaged because they lack the scale of agricultural industries or other industries generally. They do not have the ability to pay for administrative staff and for specialist services. They do not have the same credit worthiness or acceptance from bank managers. They do not have the ability to have established stabilisation schemes. They are also disadvantaged with research and promotion.

Fortunately, several of the smaller agricultural industries are now accepting- partly from their own volition and partly from the encouragement of the Government- the Government’s research and promotion arrangements. This allows for expenditure on a dollar for dollar basis- one dollar from the industry and one from the Government- for research. These industries continue to use their own funds for promotion. For this to be done on a statutory basis, it ensures that all of those in the industry pay their fair share. In respect of those smaller industries of which we have had a number of examples, I think, in the last couple of years, coming into the statutory framework, I would like to compliment the former Minister for Primary Industry. I hope that he will again be a Minister in this Parliament. I refer to the right honourable member for New England, Mr Ian Sinclair. I thank him for the interest he showed while he was Minister in some of the smaller agricultural industries and also for his encouragement for the extension of these statutory research and promotion arrangements to such industries. My understanding is that until now honey industry research, to a large extent, has been financed through the Australian Extension Services Grant and necessarily has been restricted because of this. Once the money gets flowing from the enactment of this legislation the industry will have more independence to determine priorities for its own research.

The honey industry is also interesting in that although it is a small agricultural industry- it has just over 2,000 beekeepers with 40 or more hives, which is evidently the magic determinant and the production depending on the season of about 18,000 to 20,000 tonnes-it has a viable export sector. I think the point was made by one of the previous speakers that Australia is one of the major honey exporters. Not only is the average member of Parliament not aware of this fact but also I am sure the public is not aware of it either. Exports each year vary from between 5,000 and 8,000 tonnes and earn, $5m to $8m a year in overseas exchange. So that very small band of beekeepers or honey producers is playing its part in our export industries.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Which countries are the main buyers?

Mr LLOYD:

– I will lend the honourable member for Hindmarsh the last annual report of the industry. To my understanding the United Kingdom remains the major purchaser. Some of the Western European countries are also the major purchasers of honey.

Mr Yates:

– Germany.

Mr LLOYD:

– Yes, Germany has been one of the major importers as well.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Germany buys most of our leatherwood honey.

Mr LLOYD:

– I was in Tasmania a couple of months ago and I enjoyed very much the leatherwood honey that is produced there. But as I represent the Murray area I think I should be talking about box honey and a few other types of honey instead.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is a lot better than leatherwood honey too.

Mr LLOYD:

– I will make no comment on that at all. I am quite impressed, as has been mentioned by other members here today, with the interest shown by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) in this industry. I think he is showing the sweeter side of his nature in this regard. I also understand that, because of a good season, production and exports will be up somewhat this year. So this legislation is a welcome indication of the honey industry coming together through the statutory legislation or the statutory scheme. I hope that that coming together continues into other areas of the industry. I support the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Newman) read a third time.

page 1354

HONEY EXPORT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Newman) read a third time.

page 1354

HONEY LEVY (No. 1) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on the motion by Mr Newman) read a third time.

page 1354

HONEY LEVY (No. 2) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on the motion by Mr Newman) read a third time.

page 1354

HONEY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Newman) read a third time.

page 1355

PIG MEAT PROMOTION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Mr Adermann:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-It is not my intention to take a great deal of time over this piece of legislation. The Pig Meat Promotion Amendment Bill is in line with a considerable number of pieces of legislation such as those which we have just passed and which are designed to assist segments of primary industry. They will advance the sale and saleability of products and, as a consequence, the profitability of the people involved in those industries. In recent years there has been a great expansion in the variety of pig meat products appearing on the market and the methods of presentation. As a result, there has been an extensive development of competitiveness for innovation in that industry and of sales as against other forms of meat products or meat substitutes. This Bill, as was the case with the previous legislation which we have just passed, will add to the competitiveness and ability of those people involved in this industry, subject to competent management, to market products. We have to assume that is available, given the experience of other promotion and research schemes into which growers and the Government have contributed over a number of years. The legislation is not opposed by the Opposition. I express the view, as I did on the other piece of legislation, that the investment by the growers and the taxpayers in this area of activity will bring returns which far exceed what is foregone in current income by those involved.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-The Pig Meat Promotion Amendment Bill, by increasing the power of the Pig Promotion Committee, represents a vote of confidence by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) and the Government in that Committee. It is my belief that pig meat has been the most successfully promoted meat of the various types of meat available in Australia. The message to the other sectors of the livestock industries is that the pig industry is doing very well with this promotion. It recognised the need for producing a better productthe super porker for the fresh pork trade- and is in the process of persuading farmers, butchers and housewives to appreciate its advantages.

This amending Bill will enable the Pig Meat Promotion Committee to operate better by employing its own staff, by entering into contracts on its own behalf instead of the present arrangement through the Commonwealth Government.

The latest annual report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation contains some promotional material on different types of meat. Pork is included in that promotional series although I understand that the AMLC is not responsible for pig meat, only for red meat. That broader, commonsense way of looking at meat generally is good to see. As all sections of the meat industry are competing for the same consumer dollar, I would hope that there is some common sense and co-ordination in the various promotion campaigns in the different sectors that the overall meat industry might undertake from time to time. The pig industry is also a pacesetter for both the consumer and producer with the product specification standards that it is now able to meet. It is able to do this because of the nature of its production. There are controlled inputs of food and climate because, in a sense, the pig industry is basically a housed industry, in a controlled environment. As a result it is more able to produce a repeatable, identifiable and marketable product for the consumer. I am talking about a comparison between pork and other types of meat presently available in Australia. The promotion by the Committee is tailored to this. I have already given the example of the super porker. I hope that the red meat industry generally is not too far behind the pig industry with a form of classification that will provide both to producers and to consumers of that meat some of the same product standards and identification available in respect of pig meat.

The pig and poultry industries are the target also of an emerging animal liberation movement. Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, as people become more removed from agriculture they do not understand the agricultural process as you and I do. Sometimes one wonders whether people should not concentrate their activities more on the standards of housing and the treatment of pet animal in city situations. If they did so, they might be doing a better job for the animal population generally. The pig and poultry industries, in their promotion campaigns, need to emphasise the humane, hygienic and sensible housing and production methods that are used for those meat products. It is those same procedures which are being criticised by some people which enable those industries- in particular, the pig industry- to produce meat to the specifications which are so desired by consumers. I support the legislation.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would like to speak on the Pig Meat Promotion Amendment Bill and, as we are discussing a Bill about pigs, to speak also in support of pigs. I have lived off the pig industy for a long time. It is rather depressing that public esteem of pigs is rather low. If people want to deprecate somebody they usually refer to him or her as a pig which I find rather depressing. We tend always to regard a disgusting human as being a pig. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will refresh your memory about one of the expressions that were used often in the Press and amongst political critics when members of the present Government were in opposition. The expression used was: ‘You are desperate to get your snouts back into the trough’. As a lover of pigs, I object to that comparison. Honourable members can take that as they will.

I would like to point out that pigs are very clean and gentle animals. Historically they have been a friend of humans. When we were all kids I suppose that we learnt the story of ‘the three little pigs’ and the jingle of how mother went to market. I would like to think that we are still on friendly terms with the pig. This Bill deals with the research and promotion of pig meat. All sections of the industry are in favour of this approach, perhaps with the exception of the pigs. I do not think that the pigs are terribly happy about being slaughtered for meat. I would like to explode some of the popular myths that unfortunately have grown up around the consumption of pig meat.

It has been a popular misconception that pig meat tended to be too fat and that it was not as nutritious as red meat. Research by the Pig Industry Research Committee over the last couple of years at various universities, not only in Australia but around the world, has exploded that myth. It has been proved quite conclusively that pork is the most beneficial and most healthy of all meats. It is not, as people tend to think, inclined to produce fat in a human. It is a very nutritious and healthy food for people to eat. I am pleased to note that in Australia in the last couple of years the consumption of pork has risen quite appreciably from the level of perhaps six or seven years ago. This has had a lot to do with the promotion of pig meat as a popular food based to a great extent on its versatility. I suggest to people who are loathe to eat pig meat that if they like a veal schnitzel, if they ever try a pork schnitzel they will never go back to a veal schnitzel. I assure honourable members that a pork schnitzel is ever so much more tasty, more juicy, more sappy and more attractive. I am pleased to see that the Clerk of the House is nodding his head in agreement. I always knew that he was a good judge of a drop of pork. The consumption of pork has risen appreciably to a great extent because of the promotion that it has received. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who is not now present in the chamber, mentioned the production of the super porker. This scheme has been evolved within the pig industry to produce a large pig more quickly than it was produced a generation ago. A porker can now be marketed at five months and have a dressed weight of about 100 pounds. Twenty years ago it would have taken seven to eight months to produce a pig of that weight. Of course, the corollary that can be taken from that is that a pig at 100 pounds is more soft or less mature than a pig of 20 years ago, which means that he is a better eating proposition. That has had a great deal to do with the increased popularity of pork. The super porker has been promoted very successfully in Victoria. The promotion has not been as successful in New South Wales, but certainly in Victoria the use of the super porker by the housewife has become very popular. One store in New South Wales, Target Australia Pty Ltd, is having some success in this promotion. I hope that in the next 12 months some of the other stores will follow its lead and will push the production of the super porkers even more than they have in the past. But of course pork is such a versatile meat and I do not think any Australian is loath to eat a piece of bacon. Is there anything nicer than a bit of sizzling bacon? There is value in eating a piece of bacon. Perhaps you, Mr Deputy Speaker, being a rather strong and healthy man could eat a pound of rump steak but I doubt that you could eat a pound of bacon because of the dense food value in it. The prices of bacon and pork compare very favourably with those of chicken, lamb or beef. I suggest to people that they should look in the butcher shop windows and compare the prices of pork with beef. If that happens I think production will have to go up even more than it has.

One of the things that has helped the pig industry, to which the honourable member for Murray referred, is the change to modern hygienic piggeries away from the old popular misconception of the pig being a dirty animal. I referred earlier to the traditional mythology of a pig lying in squalour. If people would take the opportunity to visit a modern piggery I am sure they would be more than impressed with the extreme hygiene that is involved. You cannot walk into a modern piggery without donning a surgical coat, a pair of specially disinfected boots and a hat, because the whole operation is germ free. The improved quality of pig meat in Australia has a good deal to do with the fact that we have adopted modern production methods. I suggest that the quality of pigs in Australia at the moment is equal to that anywhere in the world. We have always thought of the pigs in Denmark or Britain and particularly Ireland as being superior to our stock. That is not the case any more. My knowledge of the Sydney pig market leads me to believe that the Homebush pig saleyards which yard about 3,000 pigs a week of a standard the equivalent of any pig saleyard in the world. To a great extent this has been promoted by the Maltese farmers that we have around Sydney. There has been quite an immigration scheme in the last 20 years. We have a number of Maltese farmers on small plots outside the city area and the sorts of pigs they are producing is simply staggering. I am delighted to pay that compliment to them.

To sum up, I hope that the Australian people will start realising that it is healthy to eat pork. It is also economic in comparison with the price of other meat. I hope that in the next five or 10 years we will get the same improvements in pork consumption that we have had recently. I apologise for the tone of my voice. I assure the House that it is due to the flu, not to eating pork. I hope that in the next 10 years we will see further improvements in the pork industry as we have seen in the past and that pork will get to the top of the meat market in Australia as it is in many other countries. Pork is simple to produce, it is wholesome and it is very attractive. To all the pigs in Australia that may not be pleased with this marketing Bill I say sorry, but on behalf of all the pork eaters amongst whom I am very prominent, I am pleased to support this marketing amendment.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I rise in an opportunistic way to say that it is quite a shift in political emphasis to note that, although it is often contended that the National Country Party has an interest in primary industries, the heavy burden of this debate today has been carried by members of the Australian Labor Party. I think it is appropriate to congratulate the honourable member for Parramatta who obviously is one of the most informed members of the House about matters rural- the primary industries. There appears to be no excuse at all for the Country Party’s indifference to this legislation because as the Whip for the Opposition I am able to contend that I have never seen such a deficiency of legislation before the Parliament in the years that I have been a member. According to the program there remains for debate today the Currency Amendment Bill and the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill. I am told that very brief speeches will be made on each of those. We could be confronted- and this is why I was presumptious enough to speak even for a few minutes -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! I wonder whether the honourable member would be presumptuous enough to relate his remarks to pigs.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Indeed, but I simply want to say that it is very disturbing to note the lack of interest in the Pig Meat Promotion Amendment Bill. The Opposition has not been endeavouring at all to level any criticism at or oppose the Bill. The Opposition is mainly indicating acquiescence to the amending legislation which principally concerns the organisation responsible for promoting the pig industry. As the Library summary points out in its short digest of the Bill, the purpose of the Bill is simply to enable the Pig Meat Promotion Committee to enter into agreements and employ staff. Notwithstanding the narrow nature of these provisions it is an appropriate opportunity for members of the Country Party, if they are so inclined, to speak about the need for assistance to this and other rural industries.

What is the rationale for the Government’s behaviour today compared with last night? It is absolutely astonishing that the House sat until 1.30 this morning, that speakers were gagged today on the ship bounty Bills, and the primary industry Bill now under discussion does not attract the interest of the Government in any measure at all. Only one member of the Country Party is present in the House and only one member of the Liberal Party. The whole of the debate has been carried by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), the honourable member for Parramatta and the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Fitzpatrick). It is a matter of very grave concern to me and as Whip for the Opposition I formally indicate our concern about the mismanagement of the business of this Parliament, the fact that there is no progressive legislation and that the burden of debate is being left to the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Newman) read a third time. ( Quorum formed. )

page 1358

CURRENCY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to issue gold coins, denominated as $200, $100, $50 and $25. The coin with the $200 face value will be for collectors and will be issued in batches at a price related to the price of gold at that time. It will have a fixed content of about a third of an ounce of fine gold. The other coins, which will have face values of $100, $50 and $25, are described by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) as being bullion type gold coins. These will have one ounce, half an ounce and a quarter of an ounce of fine gold content respectively and will also be issued at a price that will be related to the price of gold at the time. Therefore, the difference between the collector type gold coin and the bullion type gold coin is not readily apparent. Since both have a fixed gold content and a given nominal face value there issue price will vary with the price of gold. Certainly, the coins will be meant for different uses.

The collector coin will be for numismatists or, to use a more common term, coin collectors, and will be issued in batches once or twice a year, whereas the bullion type gold coin will be for the use of investors, speculators or hoarders, whatever one likes to call them. From the point of view of the Government, the principal difference between the two types of coin is that the profit on the collector coin will be about 33 per cent at least, whereas the profit on the bullion type coin is described by the Treasurer as being relatively small.

Perhaps I could expand that a little. The collector coin will have a nominal value of $200 and will be sold at that price plus a premium, which is unspecified in the legislation. The Treasurer has told us that, at the nominal face value of $200, the profit to the Government, or seignorage, as it is called, would be of the order of some $65. That is, the $200 price for the coin would be some $65 above the value of the roughly one-third of an ounce of gold that it contains and the cost of minting. The profit to the Government would be $65 plus the additional premium over $200.

However, the price of the bullion type gold coins will be based on the nominal value plus a small premium- again unspecified. In this case presumably the profit to the Government will be rather less than it will be in the case of the collector coin. This will result from the fact that the price of the coin will reflect the price of gold alone, plus an ordinary premium. So we have a situation in which these bullion type gold coinstaking the $ 100 gold coin as an example- will be sold, at the current world price of gold, for well over $450. An ounce of gold currently costs approximately $A450. The nominal value ascribed to the coin seems to be somewhat remote from its real value. The same applies to the $50 and $25 gold coins.

I hope that the Government’s self-proclaimed capacity for efficient management will lead it to maximise the number of collector coins and minimise the number of bullion type coins that are issued, since such a result would apparently maximise the profit to the Australian Mint. One of the ironies of the policies that are embodied in this Bill is that it will extend the activities of the Australian Mint to an industry that previously has been entirely privately-operated in Australia. I refer to the manufacture and sale of medallions and bullion to collectors, investors and speculators. To this extent, the Government can be congratulated for identifying a growth industry and deciding that a public authority is the appropriate form of enterprise.

Although it is true that governments are the traditional issuing authority for coinage, the conservative parties in Australia have been happy enough for overseas and Australian producers, and their agents, to undertake the manufacture of medallions and small bars of gold and silver for sale to the general public. Perhaps now, however, the Government’s attention has been drawn to the extraordinary growth in the popularity of gold coins. For example, the krugerrand, which was introduced by the South African Government in 1970, has become a great income earner for that country. In 1978 about 6 million krugerrands were sold throughout the worldabout half to Americans at an average price in that year of $US240 each. The krugerrand accounted for 14 per cent- just over $US1.I8 billion, equal to roughly $A1 billion- of South Africa’s export income. One of the distributing agents for the krugerrand has said:

Americans have a fetish for owning gold and, unlike gold bullion, the krugerrand can be bought by anyone.

In response to this extraordinary success story, whereas in 1972 only six countries sold gold coins, by 1979 47 countries were minting and selling them. The British sovereign has always been popular. Recently it has become so popular that apparently fake sovereigns have been struck. One Press report says that in order to try to stop this practice the Bank of England has been attempting to flood the market with sovereigns and has halved the premium, from 21 per cent to 10 per cent, that it charges when it releases new coins to the London bullion market; that in 1979 sales of sovereigns were running at about 600 per cent above the 1978 volume.

All of this suggests that, with skilful marketing, Australia’s export income may well increase as a result of this direct government intervention in the manufacturing sector. Perhaps if manufacturing is really efficient, and government marketing is sufficiently aggressive, the Government will be able at last to reduce taxes sharply in the way announced by the South African Government in its Budget yesterday. I am sure that most Australians would rather have government expenditure funded through sales of Australian gold to collectors, investors and speculators in bullion than through their own taxes. The real danger here is that the Government’s usual caution and unwillingness to take its ideological basis seriously by competing aggressively in an open market with private entrepreneurs will mean that insufficient coins will be minted to make a significant impact on Australian production, exports or government revenue. The Minister has said nothing about the volume of coins to be produced. Perhaps, before the debate concludes, he would like to comment on that aspect However, since he is not even here for the debate I imagine that that will not happen.

There is, of course, a danger of this new government industry encouraging the growth of speculative activity and spreading the collecting of valuable objects as a hedge against inflationthus reducing the funds available for more productive forms of investment. It is questionable whether a government should facilitate speculation and hoarding. However, as people are free to make this type of personal decision, to refuse to issue the coins on these grounds would be an unwarranted intervention in areas which are rightly regarded as matters for private decision.

The Opposition does not oppose this Bill, particularly if it contributes to employment creation, the increasing of exports and the reduction of taxes- not that one can expect much development in any of those areas, other than at the margin. More seriously, one does have a considerable sense of unease about this measure, for it is a reflection of, and response to, the economic problems of the 1970s and the deficiencies of our economic system. The demand for gold coins would be limited to coin collectors pursuing an interesting hobby if it were not for the explosive inflation of the 1970s thoughout the capitalist world and the severe economic insecurity which high unemployment and disturbing inflation rates have created throughout the Western world. The demand for the krugerrand is apparently a reflection of both a sense of economic insecurity which leads people to try to hoard stores of value and the extraordinary cash surpluses of the oil producing Arab states. Their gigantic financial surpluses are, in turn, a reflection of the massive petroleum consumption by industrialised countries and of the slowness of those countries, including Australia, to respond to the high oil prices by reducing consumption and finding alternative sources of energy.

Although the Bill is a legitimate response to an existing situation, it is also a rather sad reminder of the intractability of economic problems which present policies in countries such as Britain and Australia are failing dismally to resolve.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-The main purpose of the Currency Amendment Bill is to empower the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to issue four denominations of gold coins. The Government will issue a collector coin at a face value of $200. It is also proposed to provide for the issue of a bullion coin containing one ounce of fine gold and having a nominal face value of $100. This coin will be similar to the krugerrand which was mentioned by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who preceded me in this debate. This $100 bullion coin will be issued at a price which will include a small mark-up over the value of its gold content at the time of issue. The Government has also decided to provide for the possible issuing of two other gold bullion coins, a $50 half-ounce coin and a $25 quarterounce coin. The Royal Australian Mint is already gearing up for production and hopes to strike the first issue of the collector coin even before the September date mentioned by the Treasurer when he introduced the legislation.

The Government is to be congratulated on presenting this Bill and on the way it has responded to a need in the community. The Government’s introduction of this legislation, I think, is an interesting case study for those in the community who have particular interests that they wish to present to the Government. A number of people interested in the issuing of gold coins- coin collectors, investors and people in the coin collecting industry- lobbied the Government. I congratulate the Government on the refreshing way in which it responded to this community need. I think people should take heart from that.

The issuing of coinage is tied up with the history of Australia itself. In the early days of the foundation of the colony of New South Wales there was a shortage of currency. In fact people had to resort to primitive man’s method of trading; that is, bartering. Many of Sydney’s earliest and finest buildings were paid for in mixed parcels of dollars, rum, flour, pork, beef and tobacco. The history of rum and the part that it played in the development of New South Wales is well known. In 1812, for instance, there was a shortage of coinage currency in the colony and then 40,000 Spanish dollars arrived in Sydney. They were mutilated, as Governor Macquarie ordered that the centres be stamped out of them, and each coin was used as a double because two coins were made out of each one. These are now collectors ‘pieces.

The gold coins which will be issued as a result of this legislation passing through the House will take their part in the history of the issue of coinage in Australia. They are to be issued under the principle of seigniorage; that is, the ancient principle whereby the Crown or the government issues coinage and any profit, being the difference between the face value of the metal in the coinage and the issuing price, is a legitimate and proper profit for the government. As the honourable member for Gellibrand said, it will be interesting to know the volume of coins issued and the addition to the revenue of the country that they will bring. I believe it could be quite significant. It is interesting to speculate on the effect on Australia’s international reserves of the issuing of these gold coins.

The Bill itself appears to be an unimportant one and not of great consequence in the community. But I think we need to speculate on the possible effects on the international reserves. Its influence might be more far-reaching than at first glance one might believe. Let us look at some of those possibilities. There is a possibility of a depletion in international reserves and, therefore, in the wild ultimate, of a need for devaluation. But I cannot see this being an option as the coins will be produced from gold currently produced in Australia and not from the Reserve Bank’s holding of gold. To the extent that gold is currently produced and exported, the introduction of gold coins will reduce export income and hence the rate of increase in our international reserves. On the other hand, the coins will be available for sale to foreign investors as well as to Australian investors and the extent of foreign investment purchases will have a compensatory balance of payments effect, although the compensatory effect, of course, would be through foreign currency and not through gold.

Another possibility is that the gold coins will in fact attract overseas interest, as I have mentioned. I believe that this is a distinct possibility. In fact I believe from people in the trade that orders have been placed already. If this is so, Australia’s holding of foreign currencies would rise as overseas investors bought up the coins. This again is an extreme ultimate but it could result in an excessive holding of international reserves and exert pressure towards a revaluation. That possibility exists. The answer to it lies only in the volume of transactions, and we do not know what the volume of transactions will be. Again any increase in international reserves through this method could be offset by the reduced earnings of foreign exchange from exports of gold production, although that assumes gold production at existing levels. I think that there is a wild card in the pack when one speculates as to the future effect of these gold coins on international reserves, namely, the volume of tonnages of gold produced in Australia. Given the production of gold in Australia, given the increased price of gold and assuming that the price of gold stays at around $500 -

Mr Humphreys:

– Are you playing with your gold coins?

Mr SHIPTON:

– My hands are in my own pockets. The potential for an increase in gold production in Australia at a price of around $500 is enormous. To my knowledge no figures are available on anticipated gold production, because this is very much a function of the market place. But many new mines are planned to open and many old mines are proposed to be reworked. I think that we will see an overall increase in Australian gold production. In fact Australia could become a significant producer of gold in the world in the next five to 10 years. If this is so, of course, the effect on Australia’s international reserves would be upward. I suppose it is possible for some element of instability to be introduced through a change in the composition of our international reserves- that is, if we are selling gold in the form of coins- inasmuch as we would be reducing the rate of accumulation of gold holdings and substituting an increase in holdings of foreign currencies. However, I believe that the overall potential increase in gold production in Australia will more than outweigh this. No figures are available and it will be interesting to see what the future brings.

While talking about gold and the effect on Australia ‘s international reserves, I point out that the issuing of these coins in Australia takes place at a time when a focus of attention is on gold. In the last few years there has been a flight, generally speaking, from paper currencies into gold. We have seen the price of gold go from about $200 to a high of $800; it has now settled back. This has come about because people have lost faith in paper currencies, largely as a result of oil price increases by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the oil shock of 1973 and the continuing increases in oil prices since then. When one looks at the effects on inflation created by these increases in the Western world one can see why the price of gold has increased.

It is interesting to look at Australia’s international reserves. In 1975 gold was 6.8 per cent of Australia’s total international reserves. In June 1976 the Government decided that gold would be valued for the purpose of our international reserves at the average London gold price for the month. When we look at what has happened since then we can see that the proportion of gold as a percentage of Australia’s total international reserves went from 6.8 per cent in 1975 to 24.3 per cent in 1976. It is also interesting to see that in 1979 it was 49.9 per cent- nearly 50 per cent. In December the proportion of gold in Australia’s total international reserves was 72 per cent. When one looks at what is happening with other countries and their proportions of gold in international reserves, one realises that the governments of the world now have a vested interest in an increase in the price of gold. As I said at the outset, it is interesting to speculate on the effect of the issuance of these coins on our international reserves and on the currency itself. My overall view is that it will be of benefit to Australia, and that the increased gold production, together with the increased revenue from the sales of the coins, will have an upward effect on the Australian dollar and will be of benefit to the country as a whole. Finally, I congratulate the Government for introducing this measure.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

– I join briefly in the debate on the Currency Amendment Bill because I think that the Government’s step to introduce the gold coin is a commendable one. I congratulate the honourable member for

Higgins (Mr Shipton), who has just spoken, because I know that he played a major part in influencing the Government to introduce a gold coin. This Bill seeks to amend the Currency Act of 1965, which takes us back a short while in history. It was that Act which brought about the introduction of decimal currency in Australia. To those of us who are of an older age, that does not seem far back, but many of the younger people of Australia will have forgotten much of it. The move to decimal currency was a major step for our country to take. It was a step which at the time many people thought would cause a great deal of inconvenience and would not work, but I think history shows that it has worked.

When I look at the original Act of 1965, it takes me back to a lot of terminology which many people will have forgotten. The Act says that one sovereign or one pound will be equivalent to $2. Other parts of the Act mention the word ‘crown’ as being equivalent to 50c, and of course a crown is a coin that saw use in Australia back in the 1940s. The Act mentions the florin, the shilling, and the sixpence. All those terms take me back to the pre-decimal days, and to many of us they bring back a great number of pleasant thoughts. It is also interesting to note that since the introduction of the original Act in 1965 there has been one amendment. Many members of the Australian public will recall that amendment, which was to alter the size and the metallic mix of the 50c coin. Originally, the 50c coin was four-fifths fine silver and one-fifth of another metal, which was not identified. It was necessary in 1 969 to amend the original Act of 1965 to make copper and nickel the components of the 50c coin. Since then the $50 note has been introduced, but that required no amendment because the original Act covered it.

The honourable member for Higgins has gone further back in history than I can, but I have studied what happened as far back as 1909- thank heavens well before my date of birth. The original Currency Act came into being with the old system of pounds, shillings and pence for Australian currency. The Bill before the House provides for the introduction of $25, $50, $100 and $200 coins, although the Government has expressed its intention to mint only a $100 coin and a $200 coin. When the Treasurer (Mr Howard) introduced this Bill into the House some two or three days ago, he stated that the $200 coin would achieve approximately its face value. While the price of gold is around $450 per ounce. When one checks the price of gold in this morning’s news one finds that it is currently about $5 10 to $5 1 1 an ounce, which means that the $200 gold coin, should anyone be able to purchase it today over the counter, would probably cost somewhere in the vicinity of $250 to $260. Some people have asked why it is necessary to produce a gold coin with a face value when the purchase price of that coin will vary with the fluctuating price of gold? I understand that it is a legal problem which is tied up with legal tender and that our currency must have a face value.

I have mentioned the history of the introduction of decimal currency into Australia. This amendment to the Currency Act will become historic because the $200 coin and the $100 coin, and the $50 and $25 coins if they are subsequently . produced, will become collectors items. They will assist the gold sales of Australia, as the honourable member for Higgins has pointed out. However, the coins will do something else. Collectors’ items such as this tend to advertise a country throughout the world. In years to come, when people collect an Australian gold coin they will think of this country. Little things such as that will tend to keep the Australian name known throughout the world.

I should like to suggest- I hope the Treasurer will listen to this- some other modifications to the Currency Act. The introduction of decimal currency has been almost completely accepted within Australia. However, I feel that our current 20c coin should be replaced with a 25c coin. It has been proved in other countries which have introduced decimal currency that a 25c coin, or a quarter, as it is known in many countries, is far more useful in the decimal sphere than a 20c coin. It is interesting to note that the $2 note is still the predominant note used throughout Australia, and of course that goes back to the time when it replaced the one pound note. But when we look at the use of decimal currency in other countries, the $2 note is one of unusual value. I am surprised that there is not a greater use of $5 notes because it is sensible that the denominations of the notes should be $1, $5, $10, $20 and the $50, as we have it today. My suggestion to the Treasurer is that one day it would be more suitable to have a 25c coin to replace the 20c coin. I think it would fit better into our system. I am pleased to see that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. I certainly congratulate the Government on the introduction of the gold coin. I should also like to congratulate the honourable member for Higgins for the years of work, and it is years, he has put into the introduction of the gold coin. He must be pleased today with the results of his efforts.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed).

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Fife) read a third time.

page 1362

AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL AUTHORITY BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr John McLeay:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-The Australian Labor Party supports the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill, and we do so with considerable enthusiasm. The year 1988 will mark the 200th anniversary of the establishment of European civilisation on the continent of Australia. As such, it is an opportunity not only to celebrate that event but also to take a good look at our past and to reflect upon exactly what sort of Australia we are building for the future.

I want to emphasise the point about 1788 being the commencement of European civilisation. Not every Australian finds that a reason for joyous celebration. I refer in particular to the descendants of those 150,000 who were here to greet Captain Phillip on his arrival. They had been here for an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 years and had they known how brutally they would be treated in the ensuing years, I am sure that their welcome to the First Fleet would have been a little different from the one they provided on 26 January 1788. Let us make sure that in our exuberance to celebrate European times we do not insult or deprecate in any way the first Australians or their significant contribution to our society and culture, and that we make 1988 a target date for the abolition of the appalling poverty that still prevails among too large a section of the Australian Aboriginal community. Let me add that, having attended the inaugural meeting of the Authority, as one of its directors, I am very confident that the chairman, Mr J. B. Reid, and the other 16 directors are very conscious of this need and will consult very closely with the Aboriginal community in planning the bicentennial celebrations.

The Bill itself simply formalises the Australian Bicentennial Authority which has been given the responsibility for the planning and staging of this historic commemoration. It will give the Authority a degree of autonomy and continuity until it is wound up on or before 30 June 1990. The

Authority will be able to form or invest in subsidiary companies for the purpose of undertaking certain special projects associated with the bicentenary. It will be able to raise revenue by merchandising its logo and granting franchises to various companies, organisations and media operations which will wish to market products, programs and functions associated with the bicentary. The revenue thus raised will be utilised to fund a range of bicentenary projects and events. The Bill also provides for the conditions of various people employed or appointed by or to the Authority and protects the name, symbols and certain words and expressions from misuse by those who might seek to exploit the bicentenary. It also provides for tax exemption for the Authority.

Our only suggestion for change is that section of the Bill which refers to ministerial control, and I will deal with that in the Committee stage. Although I have attended only the inaugural meeting of the Authority- the only meeting held so far- I am very pleased with the calibre and efficiency of both the Chairman, Mr J. B. Reid and the recently appointed manager of the Authority, Dr Armstrong. I commend the Government for these appointments. I was also delighted with the enthusiasm and the sense of excitement that was evident among the other directors. I feel that I can speak for all of them when I say that we are looking forward immensely to participating in playing some role in this historic event.

What is important during the next year or two is for Australians to start thinking about what sort of form they would like the celebrations to take. I can only give my view and the view of the Australian Labor Party. We would hope that the bicentenary celebrations would provide the opportunity for Australians, of whatever ethnic origins, to gain an intimate knowledge, understanding and appreciation of their Australian heritage; to comprehend the awesome task that confronted the arrival of the First Fleet and the battle for survival that they waged and won in the first few years of settlement and the 200 years of history that have followed. It is one of the tragedies of the Australian cultural scene that most of us know more about the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar and of how the American wild west was won than we do about those courageous souls who battled against overwhelming odds to carve out a civilisation in one of the most inhospitable countries. Can honourable members imagine what it must have been like for those early settlers in the 1 820s and the 1830s who drove out beyond the ‘Limits of Location’ with their flocks of sheep to establish homelands and to found the wool industry that was to become the backbone of this nation’s economy, at least up until World War II. The only food they had was what they took with them. If they were sick or injured, there were no doctors or health clinics to attend to them.

Mr Porter:

– No Medibank.

Mr COHEN:

– No Medibank. There were no roads, no transport, no communications, and in most instances, no company. They were often alone for months and years with nobody but their sheep and without anything or anybody to help them. This region where we are now, where Canberra is located- the Monaro- was one of the first regions outside the settlement of Sydney where they came. Whilst it may look attractive and pleasant to live in today, it was a harsh, even brutal, environment 150 to 160 years ago when it lacked the amenities of a modern technological society. What is important is that an understanding of the struggles of the early European settlers is gained and appreciated by today’s generation of Australians because regrettably, few have that understanding. We can lay the blame for that at the feet of those who taught Australia ‘s history in years gone by in such a dull, dry way and who concentrated on pumping into our heads the dates of accession to power of various governors and the various routes and times of departures and arrivals of the explorers. I am sure that I speak for everyone in this House in saying that when we were taught Australian history in school it was a very dull subject. We were taught little, if anything, about various lifestyles that prevailed throughout the early years of settlement or about the social struggles that were waged to gain selfgovernment, civil rights and equality.

We can also lay part of the blame on the fact that until recent years governments have preferred to allow Australians to be brought up on a diet of British and American films and television programs which, naturally enough, tell us nothing about our own heritage. There is nothing wrong with knowing about British and American history. What is wrong is that we know virtually nothing about our own history. To a slight degree this has been remedied in recent years as a handful of films and television programs have portrayed periods of early Australian history. On television there have been such excellent series as Rush, Ben Hall and Against the Wind. There have been such films as My Brillian Career, Picnic at Hanging Rock and the Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith, to name just a few. These films have made Australians realise that their history is just as exciting, just as stirring, and just as dramatic as the American Wild West. It all depends upon how it is told and how it is presented.

I do not want to suggest that Australians should have their history portrayed as if it were a series of westerns. I hope that the bicentenary will provide the opportunity to produce films, television programs and literature that will concentrate on bringing to Australians the rich heritage of struggle against the elements, authority and colonial rule and that it will tell it as it really was. They should depict the brutal treatment of the convicts, especially the Irish; our monstrous treatment of the Aborigines; the courage of our early sheep herders; the battle for selfgovernment; the gold rushes and the appalling treatment of the Chinese; the struggles to establish the trade union movement and so on. The history is all there. Let us hope that it is told to this generation, warts and all. Australians have some brilliant historians who are quite different from those of early years. I refer to such people as Manning Clark, Ken Inglis, Michael Cannon, Russell Ward and Geoffrey Blainey, just to name a few. I hope that these historians, together with some of the talented producers, directors and actors who have done so much in recent years to put Australian films on the map, will co-operate to produce a Roots-type television series that spans the whole period of 200 years. I see this as the most important role for the Bicentennial Authority and the bicentenary celebrations.

There will of course be hundreds of functions, events and bicentennial happenings that will be designated as bicentennial events from art shows to sports events; from dinners, balls and barbecues to fireworks displays and flower shows. They will be part of a massive explosion of celebration in 1988 and they will add immeasurably to the gala atmosphere that will prevail during that year.

Mr Cotter:

– Fireworks, balloons!

Mr COHEN:

-Yes, fireworks. If I can arrange it I will make sure that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie is on the first rocket. There will inevitably be great pressure on the Governments, both State and Federal, to sponsor functions and various projects as part of the bicentenary celebrations. There will, of course, be limited funds. I hope that what funds are available will go primarily, but not exclusively, to those projects that protect, restore or recreate our national heritage. Unfortunately, it is only in recent years that Australians have become aware of the need to conserve and protect that heritage. When one recalls that it was only a few years ago that the battle was on to save the historic Rocks area of Sydney from being flattened by avaricious developers in order to build high rise flats and office blocks, it sends a chill down one’s spine. Those who have seen the magnificent work done by the Sydney Rocks Development Authority- I pay tribute to the previous State Government- and the way in which that area is developing into the most exciting historic restoration area in Australia, if not the world, and the enormous potential it has to encourage tourism, must say a silent prayer for those private individuals and trade unions who fought so hard to save the Rocks.

However, there are still many other historic parts of Australia that have not been saved or at least are not being seen at their best. Let me give one example. Just before Christmas I had the pleasure of visiting the historic city of Parramatta as a guest of the Federal member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). It was not the first time that I had been to Parramatta, but it was the first time I had been taken around and shown the historic buildings. After visiting the old Government House I was taken to see three of Australia’s oldest and most historic buildings- Hambledon Cottage, James Ruse Cottage, or Experiment Farm, and Elizabeth Farmhouse. The first two of these buildings- Hambledon Cottage and James Ruse Cottage- have been lovingly restored by local historic societies with generous aid from the Whitlam Government and the third building, Elizabeth Farmhouse, is now being restored by the present Wran Government. Quite frankly, when I visited Elizabeth Farmhouse I was absolutely ashamed of my country. That we have allowed this most historic of all Australian buildings to fall into its present state of disrepair is nothing short of a national disgrace. Thank God the present State Government has acted before it is too late.

For those who are not familiar with the background to these buildings, let me remind them of their history. Elizabeth Farmhouse was constructed in 1793 by John Macarthur as a home for his wife Elizabeth. It is the most significant historic building in Australia, for two reasons. Firstly it is Australia’s oldest building and secondly it is the birthplace of Australia ‘s premier industry- wool. Something of which I was not aware until recently is that no other civilisation has a dwelling standing that was built within five years of its founding. The New South Wales Government architect who is working on the restoration plans describes Elizabeth Farmhouse as the most significant historical object in Australia.

Apart from the historic factors mentioned before, he says that the building is a total compendium of early colonial building techniques.

James Ruse Cottage, or Experiment Farm as it is often known, was built in 1 809 by James Ruse who was the first freed convict to receive a land grant. There at Rosehill near Parramatta, James Ruse conducted his early experiments with wheat types and varieties. This was the man who is known as the father of the Australian wheat industry and this cottage was where it all began. So within a few hundred yards of each other we have two of the most historic buildings in Australia identified as the sites where two of Australia’s greatest industries had their origins. In the same area is Hambledon Cottage, another restored historic building, which was built by John Macarthur for his daughter in 1825.

It occurred to me that a magnificent project for the bicentenary celebrations would be for the Authority, aided by the Federal, State and Local government bodies together with private enterprise, particularly the wool and wheat industries, to develop the whole of this area as an historic site as a tribute to our early settlers and to those two industries that have done so much to make Australia a great country and are so clearly identified with the early pioneers. Fortunately both Hambledon Cottage and Elizabeth Farmhouse have a considerable area of undeveloped land around them. The former is located in a park area of about two acres; the latter has at least five acres surrounding it. With the aid of grants by the Whitlam Government, eight properties have been purchased around James Ruse Cottage so that visitors can view the cottage more advantageously. What I suggest is required is a joint effort to purchase all the cottages around these three buildings and to develop the area into one historic centre. My information is that this would involve the purchase of about 40 cottages and would cost approximately $2m. As restoration is already in progress on Elizabeth Farmhouse, only a minimal amount of expenditure would be required in restoration work. The next step, and the one I believe would make this site a must for every Australian and international visitor, would be with the co-operation of the wool and wheat industries to establish a wool and wheat museum located in the twenty-odd acres that would then be available in the area after the cottages had been cleared. It would not be too difficult to imagine how exciting such a museum would be with the colourful history of these two industries told with the help of audiovisual aids, pictorial representations of early pioneering efforts, vintage machinery and the history of the personalities and regions where these industries developed. Alongside the museum could be a sample woolshed where shearing and sheep dog displays could be presented to the public every day.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

Mr COHEN:

– Can honourable members think of anyone to do that exhibition?

Mr Humphreys:

– Mick Young.

Mr COHEN:

– I thought honourable members would never think of it. One section could be devoted to explaining how wheat is grown and harvested, with examples of the various varieties of wheat. I believe that such a project would become one of the finest historical and educational projects in Australia and a magnificent addition to Australia ‘s tourist attractions.

Finally, let me add a special plea for assistance to those man made historic attractions that have grown up in Australia during the past decade. I refer in particular to such projects as Sovereign Hill at Ballarat, Lachlan Village at Forbes, Swan Hill Historic Village, and Old Sydney Town, which is in my own electorate of Robertson. These historical re-creation projects have contributed enormously to the knowledge of Australians of their heritage and to the education of both the young and the old. I have often heard it said by history teachers that school children learn more about Australian history by spending one day at Sovereign Hill, Old Sydney Town or Lachlan Village than they do in a year of classroom learning. Most of these historic re-creations are non-profit making and have been initiated by the local community. They were all probably a little ambitious and if they had been looked at solely as business propositions they may not have gone ahead.

Whilst I do not support the pumping of taxpayers money into nonviable projects, I believe there is a strong case for looking at these projects in the context of their contribution to our heritage, education, tourism, decentralisation and employment. Most of the projects were undercapitalised and it has been enthusiasm and love of the project that has kept the management, staff and local committees committed to their growth and survival. It is important that they continue to grow so that added attractions will improve their viability and attract more visitors and more return visits. They will have an important role to play in the Bicentenary celebrations, particularly Old Sydney Town, which is the recreation of the site where the First Fleet landed and the First Settlement occurred.

In the initial meeting of the Bicentennial Authority, the directors were of the view that ‘people participation’ was the most important aspect of the celebrations. We were told that the most successful and popular aspect of the recent Western Australian sesquicentenary was the ‘back to’ functions, where people dressed up in period clothing and re-enacted events from their early history. Few places have more opportunity than the historic re-creation village to contribute to people participation happenings’.

I conclude by saying how important it is that our non-English speaking community be very involved in these celebrations. Since Australia celebrated its centenary in 1888 there has been a significant shift in the ethnic mix of the Australian population. It is difficult to get accurate figures of those people who make up the Australian community now and to determine their ethnic identification. One can say, however, that in 1901, 77 per cent of the Australian population was Australian-born. This rose at every census until 1947 when it reached 90 per cent, but by 1971 it had fallen to 80 per cent. However, these figures do not accurately show people’s ethnic identification.

I am told that just after World War II, 97 per cent of the Australian community was of British origin; that is, that these people or their parents came from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The census does not identify people by ethnic groups; only whether they were born in Australia or elsewhere.

However, it would be fair to say that a young Greek couple with three children all born in Australia would probably identify fairly strongly with the Greek community at least while the children were young. What one can probably safely say is that 20 to 25 per cent of the Australian community that once had its origins in Britain is now made up of people whose origins are Greek, Italian, German, Yugoslavian, Spanish, Maltese, and so on. They have changed the face of Australia during the past 35 years, all of it to the good. Let us make sure that the Bicentenary acknowledges the debt we owe to these more recent arrivals.

I regard it as one of the great privileges I have had since I have been a member of parliament to be a director of the Bicentennial Authority. I hope that every member of parliament and the people of Australia take the opportunity at this early stage to make a contribution by letting the Bicentennial Authority know their views about what form the Bicentenary ought to take. It may be a long way away, but if we are going to make the Bicentenary celebrations a great success, many things have to be planned a long way in the future. I wish to move an amendment, but I think it appropriate that I do so after the suspension of the sitting.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed).

Mr MacKENZIE:
Calare

-Those listening to this broadcast should be made aware of the fact that a quorum has been called and, of course, it has been maintained by Government members. The Opposition was able to manage only three members present and now only two members are present to witness this potentially most enlightening speech that I am about to deliver. The Bill before the House is the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill 1 980. The purpose of this Bill is to establish the Authority which will be responsible for the conduct of the celebrations and the activities associated with the Bicentenary in 1988. Furthermore, the legislation will protect the various logies, insignias and symbols that will be associated with the Bicentenary. I am pleased to see that the legislation contains a sundown provision in that within the Bill there is provision for the winding-up of the Authority on or before 30 June 1990. 1 am pleased to see that we are not in a situation where we could have a semistatutory government authority continuing until the tricentenary.

The commemoration of the Australian Bicentenary is an event that has been acclaimed by both sides of the House. I therefore welcome this occasion as a completely bipartisan event in Australia’s history. The Bicentenary is less than eight years away. In that time a tremendous amount of preparation will have to be achieved and organised for the activities that will occur, not the least of which will be, we hope, the opening of a new and permanent Parliament House in Canberra. The main reason for this legislation, as I mentioned before, is that overseas experience has shown that it is of great importance that there should be effective control of the exploitation of words, things, activities and symbols that relate to the Bicentenary. It is essential for that control to be had, in that the Bicentenary represents an opportunity for substantial revenue raising activities. To accord with the philosophy of this Government we would see that the Bicentennial Authority is one which should raise substantial revenue so that it would be largely independent of the taxpayers’ contributions. At least, I trust that that is the way it will, in fact, occur. The revenue, according to the second reading speech made by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), gained from the licensing and franchising of the use of symbols and expressions will assist the Authority to meet the costs of the Bicentennial celebrations.

This Bill provides the opportunity for me to express some points of view in relation to Australia as it may well be at the time of the celebration of 200 years of its foundation. In my view this country is approaching a most significant and potentially difficult time in its short history. We see many divisions in our society. We see many divisions among our people. We have conflicts between employer and employee, between governments and trade unions, between States and the Commonwealth, between technologists and artisans, between young people and their parents and between country people and city people- but to name just a few of the conflicts. We have been through a period of rapid expansion in our industrial and manufacturing capacity, of rapid population and immigration growth, of stock market booms, of unprecedented minerals and resource discoveries and of significant recognition by the world community and, in particular, by many of our Asian neighbours.

In more recent times we have also discovered that many of our traditional values and benefits are under challenge. The strength of our family unit is being eroded and our national spirit, identity and endeavour appears at times to be waning. We are in danger of becoming, in my opinion, a complacent, insular, self-satisfied satiated society. We are also becoming, in my opinion, very much a welfare orientated handout society to the extent where it is said on many occasions that we in Australia are an I’mallrightJack nation. Now a new dimension can be added to that. We can add: ‘If I’m not all right Jack you or somebody else will have to bail me out’. Jack of course means, the Government, the taxpayer, the employer, our fellow Australians and our neighbours- anybody else but ourselves. Where indeed is our independence, our initiative and our capacity for tightening our belts and working our way out of some of our economic difficulties?

Perhaps we should examine why we are in this situation. Perhaps we should say that as a nation we have never had it so good. We have never had some of the major conflicts that most of the other countries went through. We have never had some of the major internal battles and revolutions. We do not really prize freedom in the many ways that our neighbours in other countries do because they fought and they struggled for it over hundreds of years. We have indeed been isolated geographically, intellectually, and culturally. We do not realise what an incredibly wealthy and blessed nation we live in. We only have to look at almost every resource base that we have in this country. I refer to iron ore, coal, gas, oil, base minerals, bauxite, uranium and our land and water resources. Do honourable members in this House realise that on a population basis we probably have more available free water in this nation than most other countries. Do we realise that in this country people have virtually never been hungry and never been really cold in the sense that other people have been cold. I come from a cold climate and I should know. We have never really been destitute with some exceptions. Basically, we have never been through the period of great hardship and sacrifice that so many people of other nations have been through. I think it is largely for those reasons that we do tend to be rather soft, lazy and indolent. We have a tremendously prevalent attitude of apathy, that things are crook, and that somebody else should fix them up. I was talking to an American recently who said to me that one of the first impressions he had of Australia was of saying: ‘When are “they” going to do something about it? Something should be done about it; everybody else should do something about it except me ‘.

Mr Burns:

– Who said that?

Mr MacKENZIE:

– It was Professor Laffer. He said: ‘So often I find in this country that people are blaming everybody else for their circumstances. I have not heard yet somebody say: “When will we do something about it?” or, furthermore, “What can we do about it?”. ‘

Mr Cotter:

– Buggered if I know!

Mr MacKENZIE:

-Unfortunately my friend, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, has summed it up. Of course, that interjection will appear in Hansard. Perhaps we approach some of our dilemmas with an air of desperation such as that which has been expressed by my honourable friend.

Mr Cohen:

– That was one of his more intelligent remarks, by the way.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– It was one of his more intelligent remarks. He has proven to be an extraordinarily good paddler and, in those circumstances, he knew exactly what he was doing in the south-west of Tasmania as the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) would know. I have digressed somewhat from the substance of this Bill. We must recognise our apathy, complacency and laziness. We must recognise that we have a standard of living that perhaps we do not appreciate. We must recognise that work is not a dirty word. We must realise that our future lies both strategically and economically in this part of the world. We need really reconfirmation of our national identity and our national spirit that pioneered this great nation- a spirit that has carried us through recession and prosperity, war and peace, conflict and consensus. I recall very well being in an English speaking class at a particular university in Peking. It was a very interesting exercise. At that university I was fascinated by a map of the world that was portrayed at the end of the classroom.

Mr Cohen:

– Yes, it’s round. Did you know that?

Mr MacKENZIE:

– That map of the world was not round at all as has been suggested in error again by the honourable member for Robertson. A projection was based on those longitudes of the world that surrounded China, South East Asia and Australia. On the western side, Europe and the United Kingdom, were squeezed up into a disproportionately small strip and on the eastern side the Americas were also squeezed up into a very small strip. The whole projection of that map of the world was based around longitudes. The most disturbing feature of the map was that superimposed on it was an index of the resources that each nation had on a per capita basis. So on almost every criterion there were these huge bar charts showing how much coal Australia had per head of population compared to how much China, Japan, or the other countries had. The position was the same whether one looked at fossil fuels, petroleum, gas, coal, iron ore or whatever it might have been. I wonder what those Chinese students were being taught and what impressions they were being given about Australia with a population of some 13 million people compared with their country’s population of some 950 million people. One of” the most sobering experiences I had in China was to realise just how blessed Australia was. One had to go to Peking to find out just how well that was portrayed with this very simple projection of resources per capita on bar charts superimposed on this rather spurious map of the world. I listened with great -

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This is an absolutely fascinating speech and we are all enjoying it. But I do not see what relevance it has to the Bill at hand which concerns the bicentennial celebrations. I would love to hear about the honourable member’s tours of China and of his trip to the south of Tasmania but I do wish he would get back to debating the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The Bill is one that invites some fairly broad comment. I am sure that the honourable member for Calare is about to come back to a discussion of the Bill in more specific terms. I call the honourable member for Calare.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I listened to the point of order. However, I believe that this Bill also presents an opportunity to do some parish pork barrelling of one’s own electorate as did the honourable member for Robertson recently, when he spoke on the Bill. I agreed with him when he said that this bicentenary celebration provides an opportunity for some major works of national significance to be undertaken and funded by the Commonwealth Government. He mentioned Parramatta in particular and I would like to point out that in my area- the Orange-Bathurst area- there are buildings and sites of particular significance. For example, gold was discovered not in Western Australia or in Victoria, as some people would have been under the misapprehension. It was discovered by a gentleman, Mr Hargraves, at a place called Ophir.

Mr Cohen:

– He lived in my electorate.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– Ophir is actually in my electorate.

Mr Cohen:

– No, he lived in my electorate; his house is still there.

Mr MacKENZIE:

– The gold that he found was actually in my electorate at a place called Ophir. Of course, areas in my electorate are very closely associated with the original discoveries of gold and, therefore, with the early history of Australia. The city of Bathurst is the oldest inland settlement in Australia. Today I have these delightful villages like Hill End, Sofala, Sallys Flat, and Queen’s Pinch which are all associated with the early discoveries of gold. There is a case to be made that the Commonwealth Government could well fund restoration of these villages as living examples of our history.

I conclude on the note that this Bill relating to the establishment of the Australian Bicentennial Authority provides an opportunity for us to ponder our history, but in particular to consider where this country is going in the future. The bicentennial celebrations should allow each and everyone of us to examine who we are as Australians, to decide whether we have an identity, to rekindle our national spirit and pride, and to advance ourselves further into the third 100 year period of our history with enormous confidence and faith in this nation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-In a similar vein I simply want to commend the concept of the bicentennial celebrations and the establishment of the Australian Bicentennial Authority which is the subject of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill. I am very glad to see that some of the younger members of parliament with, I suppose they would hope, long parliamentary careers ahead are already involved in the Authority associated with the planning of the celebrations. It is good to see that my colleague, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) has taken such a deep interest in these matters because he probably distinguished himself in regard to the establishment of Old Sydney Town in a way that brought very great response and recognition from all over Australia. No doubt there are one or two honourable members on the Government side- I am not quite certain of the composition of that Authority- who are similarly motivated.

Mr Cohen:

- Senator Lewis.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Apparently Senator Lewis is also interested in this matter. One of the important aspects of the celebration will be the opening of the new and permanent parliament house. That day cannot come quickly enough, not just for the 1,000 or 1,200 people and parliamentarians who work in this building but also for all the people of Australia who place at an important level in their thinking the democratic responsibilities of the parliamentary institution. The visitors who come here must learn very quickly about the inadequacies of this place. I suppose that from now until 1988 we will be watching with the greatest animation and excitement to see one of the greatest buildings in Australia evolving to provide a place for the effective government of the nation by the representatives of the people for the people. I take this opportunity to say that as we approach this great celebration we should give additional thought to the birthplace of the nation and those places which bear the name of and have an association with the exploration ventures of Captain Cook. I have represented the area covered by the electorate of Hughes since I have been a member of parliament. It included for my first eleven years as a member, Captain Cook’s landing place at Kurnell. I would like to recommend to the Authority and to all those who are planning the celebrations the thought that that landing place has never occupied in the thinking of Australian people the status that would be normally enjoyed in comparable countries. The birthplace of the contemporary United States is virtually hallowed ground in the United States.

We have had the misfortune to see Kurnell become overshadowed by a great American oil refinery. At the landing place there is a memorial to Forby Sutherland, to Banks and to Cook himself. Every year a celebration takes place there. To my way of thinking it has always been inappropriate in that the occasion is used for a very solemn group of official-looking peoplemembers of parliament and others- to walk around laying wreaths on the various memorials. It is no way, in my view, to commemorate the discovery of this great southland. I acknowledge that there should be tributes to Banks and Solander and people like Forby Sutherland who was the first white man to die in Australia. Instead of laying wreaths we should be using the occasion to encourage people to take a real pride in the achievements of Australia. I believe this Government and certainly the Authority which is the subject of this Bill should contemplate the possibility of bringing representative groups such as ethnic groups from all over Australia, maybe groups from high schools, to bring in their pilgrimage a message of gratitude for the opportunity to live in this land which is more generously endowed with natural and geological resources, with a capacity to grow and a capacity to sustain a larger number of people than almost any other continent.

Kurnell should not be the forgotten place that it is. It would be wrong to say that it is a derelict place but it is appropriate to say that it is not a sufficiently acknowledged place. I do recall that on the occasion of the 150th anniversary Her Majesty the Queen did go there. There was a reenactment of the landing. It was an occasion when some special attention was given to the Aborigial people of this country, and so should it be because on the occasion of Cook’s landing there was a symbolic gesture by the Aboriginal people of defiance against the invasion of this country. They threw spears but of course being no match for what they regarded as the invading force they subsequently withdrew to the bushland.

Mr Cotter:

– Did someone fire a shot?

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Indeed they did; a musket was fired over their heads.

Mr Cotter:

– It would be a great celebration if they fired a shot.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I am not sure what point the honourable member is making. I do not want to misconstrue what he is saying because I do not think he has any nefarious intent in this matter. I only say to the honourable member that this occasion in fact represented the takeover of a land and an indigenous people by another nation and it was appropriate that on the occasion of the Queen’s visit the Aboriginal people were able to participate in the re-enactment and demonstrate their own pride in their own nationality and love of their country. Much more could be done towards that end if Kurnell were featured in future celebrations.

That very heartland of my own electorate is Sutherland, a town named after Forby Sutherland, the first white man to die in Australia. So it is natural that I, as the representative of a very large number of people who take a great pride in their association with Captain Cook’s landing place, should say that we would like to see more done. It is not just a matter of ceremonies on the occasion of the anniversary of the landing. I think a good deal more could be done in respect of commemorating that actual landing day, whether it is by way of stamps or by way of scholarships to assist the Aboriginal people. I am glad to note that we have at last succeeded in establishing a museum at Kurnell which includes artefacts of our early history and certainly items that relate to the life of our Aboriginal people. Much more could be done to enhance the quality of that museum. Much more could be done in recognition of the work of Banks, the botanist. Although there is a very lovely reserve on the headland in the district, I believe facilities could be provided which would encourage an appreciation of Australian flora and fauna.

I must confess that this is a totally ad hoc contribution to this debate because we seem to be lagging in a legislative program tonight. When one starts to think about these matters one realises that a good deal could be undertaken in regard to all these matters. The bicentenary is not that far away. I hope that the people involved will throw themselves into the organisation of it with the keenest of anticipation. It is a big occasion. We have 200 years of history. It is my own personal belief that they are 200 years of very great achievement, 200 years of enormous enterprise, the fulfilment of an independent spirit and the manifestation of great personal aspirations on the part of a very large number of people. It is important for us to contrive the type of celebrations which will cause all those examples, sometimes examples of hardship and sacrifice, to be emulated in the future by Australian people because I believe that little will be attained in the way of progress unless we build with the same spirit of sacrifice and contribution to the national cause in the future as has characterised our past.

I sincerely hope that Kurnell finds a place in these anniversary celebrations. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) sought to remind me by a friendly interjection that he too could make a similar contention. I have had the good fortune to spend a good deal of time working with parliamentary committees of inquiry in the Garden Island area. I have seen the historical relics there relating to Captain Stirling’s landing on the west coast of Australia. Here again insufficient effort is made to cater for the dormant interest that is in the heart of every Australian, whether of recent or long indigenous derivation. That place was primitive and deprived and in those times must have caused hardship to many people. The island itself has a very sensitive ecology, a very limited growing capacity and a very poor supply of food, yet the way in which the potential of that lovely part of Australia was identified and exploited to the full is amazing.

The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), who is presently at the table and who represents the Opposition in respect of a number of matters, including tourism, would surely acknowledge that we have here not just an opportunity to commemorate Australia’s historical occasions, not just an anniversary that will be a ritualistic remembrance of people who have achieved certain things, but indeed an occasion on which the tourist potential of Australia can be greatly enhanced. We can encourage an appreciation and realisation on the part of our own people of the derivations of our magnificent country and also cause the rest of the world to understand that here there is a nation of achievement, a nation with a very great future.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– It is my privilege to join in this debate tonight. I did not expect the opportunity because I expected that the Government would have a full program. After all, it kept us here till 2 o’clock this morning debating a lot of much more important issues than this, yet tonight it has run out of steam in terms of the debates that it had programmed for today. In fact we had almost run out of business by dinner time. If it had not been for the tenacity of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) the sitting would have been wound up before dinner. Fortunately he was able to keep things going beyond the suspension and the Government had time to reorganise its affairs and bring forward other debates to occupy this evening.

However, I do not think that this issue should go unnoticed or lack debate. It does bring to mind a very important question indeed. We in Western Australia, who have just survived the State’s 150th anniversary celebrations, have some particular experiences to bring to bear upon the bicentennial celebrations of the nation. One of the interesting things about the 150th anniversary celebrations in Western Australia was- one must say it- that by the end of the year everyone was becoming a little bored with them. It would be well for the Australian Bicentennial Authority to take on board the experience of Western Australia and try to condense the celebration of Australia ‘s 200th birthday to something less than 12 months. It became clear that, if the experience of Western Australia is one to go by, after a short time the populace became more than a little bored. The celebrations were heralded by the Government of Western Australia as having been a very great success, but if we are to go by the Premier’s first re-election action, the opposite would seem to be the case. The only Minister who was dropped from the Court Government’s Ministry was Minister MacKinnon who had been in charge of the 1 50th anniversary celebration activities. I repeat that he was the only Minister who was sacked. Presumably that was the Premier’s judgment of his performance during 1979.

The great deficiencies in ‘ WAY 79 ‘ were really twofold. The first was that it was turned into an exercise in self-gratification for politicians. That was not the original intention or if it was, it certainly should not have been. Nor should it be the intention that the bicentennial celebrations should be simply an exercise for the benefit of politicians. Such celebrations should be an exercise for the nation. In fact, in Western Australia most of the activities organised in the State were highly biased in favour of marginal electorates and the sorts of activities in which Government Ministers would receive the maximum exposure and would be able to make the maximum political mileage.

For instance, my own city of Fremantle which, after all, was the cradle of the colony of Western Australia, was almost totally ignored during the whole of the celebrations in 1 979. Not one significant activity was carried out there during that time by the Western Australian Government. In fact, the only substantial activities that were carried out were those that were sponsored by the city of Fremantle itself. The Government of Western Australia could not have cared less about Fremantle ‘s place in the dynamic and important history of the State. After all, it was in

Fremantle that so many of the important early activities of the State took place. Fremantle was the place where the first settlement was established. It became, within 60 years, the major port in Western Australia and continues to occupy that role. It is still the only place within metropolitan Perth which has retained any of the early colonial buildings in an authentic setting. Most of the early buildings in the city of Perth itself have fallen to the developer’s hammer. Fremantle has a very important place in the history of Western Australia yet, because it was not important in a political context, it was almost totally ignored by the State Government, which was responsible for organising the 150th anniversary celebrations. One warning that I give to the Authority is that it should not allow itself to be browbeaten by selfseeking politicians who want only to promote their own causes and particular egos.

The other great deficiency in ‘WAY 79 ‘ was its almost total neglect of the role played by the Aboriginal people in Western Australia’s history. The only time that Aborigines received any prominence during those celebrations was on the first day of 1 979. On that occasion two important events occurred: First, the Governor of Western Australia, who opened ‘WAY 79’, was handed a notice to quit’ by representatives of the Aboriginal community in Western Australia. They said that the white people of Western Australia had not paid their rent to the original owners for 150 years and it was high time that they left or were evicted for that default. I think that that demonstration held a very important message. It is absolutely vital that by the time the bicentennial celebrations are held we will have resolved once and for all the appalling relationships between European Australians and those whom we conquered in order to occupy this country. If we have not done that we will occupy a totally ashamed and disgraced position in the world. Even 200 years after is not too late to rectify that appalling neglect on the part of our forefathers.

There is only one thing, so far as I am concerned, that is absolutely vital to the bicentennial celebrations. It is that we should have by then concluded in Parliament a treaty of commitment, Makarrata, or whatever it is to be called, with the Aboriginal people of this country, one which will determine once and for all the limitations of the rights of each group. An absolutely fundamental aspect of that treaty must be that the Aboriginal people have absolutely inalienable rights to traditional land which they occupied in the past and particularly that which they now occupy. If we neglect that aspect the celebrations will be a total catastrophe, a total failure. The necessary precondition if we are to support these celebrations in any sense at all is that we overcome the great injustices perpetrated on the Aboriginal people over the last almost 200 years. I must repeat that that was one of the very great deficiencies of WAY 79’.

The other important event which took place on 1 January 1979 was when Rolf Harris, a great Western Australian, took the opportunity as the honoured guest of the celebrations to draw attention to the plight of the Aboriginal people, a plight of which he is so well aware and with which he is so intimately associated. To the great embarrassment of the Premier of Western Australia, he drew attention to the deficiency of the whole exercise in not having elevated the Aboriginal people of Western Australia to some position of dignity and reasonable participation in those celebrations. As we begin to plan the 200th birthday of Australia that is the most important question that must be resolved. It is a very simple question to resolve because, after all, we are the only country which was settled as a result of European occupation which failed to conclude such a treaty. New Zealand, the countries of North America and so on were settled only after some sort of agreement, some sort of treaty, had been made with the original inhabitants. Australia stands as the only country which was occupied by desecrating the culture of the original inhabitants without any commitment to the future of those people. That problem will remain a running sore in this country for as long as it remains unresolved.

Another point which I think has to be made is that when these celebrations take place we certainly ought to be spared the indignity and the embarrassment of seeing event after event which seeks to re-enact original activities at the time of settlement. It is a matter of great disgust to me to see overfed politicians strutting around in period costume. I am sure we can do without that. I am sure it will only seek to lower the tone of the whole celebrations if we allow that sort of thing to go on.

Of course, as a result of this Bill the Parliament will not have all that much to say about how these celebrations are carried on. But I think that this is an opportunity for us to insist that the proposed authority take note of the thoughts of the Parliament and, particularly, of the mistakes that were made in Western Australia last year. The Western Australian celebrations were promoted on the basis that they would attract a large tourist trade to Western Australia. They were to be the excuse to drag conventions and people on holidays to Western Australia so that they could take part in the celebrations. If what has been said by the group in Western Australia which is responsible for co-ordinating conventions in that State is anything to go by, fewer people went to Western Australia last year than the year before. In fact the celebrations kept people away from Western Australia in droves. The same thing happened during the United States Bicentennial celebrations which were held on the east coast of America. People kept away from the east coast because of the expectation of overcrowding. That is a charitable face to put on it. Another interpretation is that they may have understood how tedious the celebrations were. I expect that that is an interpretation which people put on the Western Australian celebrations and which spurred them to stay away.

There is another aspect to all this. The very high air fares to Perth compared with international air fares were another reason for keeping people away from Western Australia last year. At times last year it was cheaper for a resident of Sydney to visit San Francisco than it was for him to visit Perth. What sort of incentive is that to encourage tourism to Western Australia? That is a very real problem which has to be overcome. We have to give Australians an opportunity to see their own country, particularly at this time as we are preparing for very important celebrations.

I think that this is an important measure. I do not think it is one we can take lightly. Of course, it is one that we can applaud. We can look forward to these celebrations, but they are not without their risks. If the preconditions I mentioned are not met- if we do not settle the differences between the European community of Australia and the Aboriginal community of Australia- the celebrations will be a total disaster.

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-The Bicentenary year is now less than eight years away. Whilst the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill is a bipartisan one and has the approval of all parties in this Parliament, I am a little taken aback by the contributions to the debate so far from most honourable members opposite, particularly from the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins). Those contributions have emphasised the fears and the problems of the future and, I regret to say, they have failed to demonstrate publicly- where I think it is so important- that the year 1988, when this nation will reach only its second centennial of European settlement, should be regarded in every sense of the words not just as a milestone but also as a challenge. I take up the point made by the honourable member for Fremantle. It is important that by the time we reach that date all sections of the Australian community- white, Aboriginal et cetera- should be able to regard this nation as their home and be united as one Australian people.

I noted that the honourable member drew a distinction only between the white settlers and their antecedents and the Aborigines. I would like to place on record the fact that about one in four of the Australian population is either foreign born or is the child of somebody who was foreign born. This represents to me the greatest challenge that we have to face in the next eight years. Unlike most nations, Australia has been singularly successful, especially in recent years. Mistakes were made earlier, just as they were with the Aborigines; certainly mistakes were made with the early migrants. I think we have seen, especially in the last 15 years or so, a considerable degree of community enlightenment. I am pleased to say that I think this enlightenment has covered all political shades of opinion. It has become obvious, even to those who are successors of the essentially Anglo-Saxon early migrants, that whatever they may have thought Australia would be in their lifetime, they have found it to be something quite different. I think we have gained an enormous amount from the fact that in our lifetime we have seen such an historic infusion of different races and cultures making up the Australian community.

In recent years we have demonstrated by our very liberal approach, not only to migration but also to the efforts taken by both sides of this House, that we give new settlers every opportunity possible to integrate within the community while at the same time not to lose sight of their own traditional cultures, backgrounds and values. Probably for the first time this century we have been able to stand up in the face of the entire world and to say that this nation, despite whatever imperfections may be on our escutcheon, can stand proud of the fact that we are one of the few nations on earth where any person, irrespective of colour, creed, race or religion, can aspire in the full sense of the word for the very top in commerce, in politics or in any sphere of endeavour. At least there is one Aborigine in this Parliament.

Mr Cohen:

– How many live in your electorate?

Mr CONNOLLY:

-Quite a few, as they do in the honourable member’s electorate. The point I am making is that we have to see the bicentennial essentially as a challenge. We must make sure that the work which we have achieved over the last few decades- in fact over the past 200 years- is not forgotten in an historical sense and that it is seen as merely the beginning of a further step towards integration and towards a total community concept of what this nation can mean not only to its own citizens but also to the greater world. I believe that we have a lot to give the world. I am sure that in the next 20 years up to the turn of this century Australia will go from merely being a medium ranking power to one of the world’s great powers. We will get there not necessarily because of the paucity of our population, which is self-evident, but because by sheer chance we have been given one of the greatest combinations of natural resources of any nation on earth. This presents us with a tremendous challenge and a tremendous responsibility.

I hope that we will see in charge of the bicentennial activities a committee which not only will represent the Australian community in the full sense and take into account the views of individual States but also which, I hope, will learn something from the American Bicentennial. At the early stages of the planning of that event many took the view that those on the east coast would be participants because that was where the modern United States commenced. But the view was taken quite incorrectly, as it proved, that those on the west coast somehow or other would not be very interested. The people who planned the American Bicentennial were amazed that in the years leading up to the celebration they were able literally to reach into the smallest communities in the nation. By the year of their Bicentennial they had a massive national effort organised, with the community completely behind them. Wherever one went in America in that year one was, above all conscious of the pride of the average American citizen in the fact that he was an American and of what his nation meant to him. I sincerely hope that in the eight odd years ahead of us- it is not long; it is a very short period- we will be able to spread within our community, regardless of politics and individual views, the expectation that we are lining up on the starting line of a truly great national event, an event in which we can be proud of the past, an event which I hope also will demonstrate the potential for the future.

There are probably few nations on earth which have commenced, in terms of white settlement, as inauspiciously as Australia. In 1788, when the first European settlers arrived in Sydney Cove, most of them came in chains. They were the flotsam and jetsam of Great Britain. They were the product of a society in which they had no place, and they came to this land. Some of them, such as the Irish, brought with them their political difficulties. These settlers spread throughout New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and three other States the belief in freedom above all. In those days the individual Australian developed a very close attachment for his family, for his friends, and for the community. Most Australians did not live in the large conglomerations of the cities, which is what we see today. They were hardy settlers who went out west. They went over the mountains and developed the land- a very harsh land, as Dorothea Mackellar has so aptly told us in her famous poems. They found one thing in their development, that is, that no man could stand absolutely alone. He had to be part of a society. He had to be part of something bigger than himself.

There is a tendency in our community today which I abhor, namely, the view that ‘I’m all right, Jack, and it does not really matter about anybody else’. I hope that in the year 1988, and those years leading up to it, we will see a greater awareness of participation and a greater appreciation that this nation’s destiny depends on the capacity of every single Australian- Aboriginal, white and Asian, or any other group which makes up the Australian community. We have much to learn from each other. We have much to give each other. As I said earlier, the very fact that our cultural traditions are so mixed, that we have in this nation over 70 distinct national identities, is probably going to be our greatest asset in the future.

I am pleased with the number of people who have been put on the Board of Directors of the Bicentennial Authority. I know the Chairman, Mr J. B. Reid, and I have complete confidence in his capacity to lead this body. I am sure he will draw to it a group of people who are prepared to work with imagination. We need not people who will tell us what we cannot do in terms of the Bicentenary but rather people who are prepared to look across the frontiers of the future and make the year truly memorable, something we will not therefore forget. As I have said, it is merely eight years away and time is not on our side. The State and Territory bicentennial committees have a lot to do to achieve a truly national effort in which every single community of Australians, wherever they may be, from Bourke to Broken Hill to Marble Bar to Darwin to Sydney, will be united in the sense that their own small identification with this great national event will be but a part of a total whole of which every Australian can be justly proud.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I have circulated in my name an amendment to clause 6 which states:

Where the Minister gives a direction under this section, he shall, within 1 5 sitting days after giving that direction, lay before each House of the Parliament a copy of the direction together with his reasons for giving the direction.

Clause 6 of the Bill states:

The Authority shall promote its objects and exercise its powers in accordance with such directions (if any) with respect to the policies to be followed by the Authority as may, from time to time, be given to the Board by the Minister in writing.

The Government has requested, as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), and this has been said by members in the House, that the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill should be bipartisan. I do not think there was anything in my speech or in the speech of any other honourable member that would indicate otherwise. We fully support the Government in this Bill, but we remind the Government that during the period when we were in office, when Bills were presented to the Parliament which provided for a Minister to give directions to an authority, it made great play of the fact that the Parliament should be informed, and informed fairly promptly. There were many occasions on which the Liberal-Country Party when in Opposition argued that that should happen. We accepted most of those amendments. I do not for the life of me see any reason why this amendment ought not to be accepted. It follows in the tradition of similar amendments moved by the Liberal Party when it was in Opposition and we were in government. We would hope that this amendment will be accepted because we believe it is essential to the fair conduct of the affairs of the Australian Bicentennial Authority. We feel, as the present Government did when it was in Opposition and considering the Australian Film Commission Bill, say, that in establishing a statutory authority the Government should have the confidence to place the mangement and operations of that authority within the hands of the people who are appointed to serve it. However, if the Minister or Government believe that there is some cause for them to direct that authority, then within 1 5 sitting days, which is about five or six weeks, the Parliament ought to be informed about it. I therefore move:

Clause 6, page 2, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause:

2 ) Where the Minister gives a direction under this section, he shall, within 1 5 sitting days after giving that direction, lay before each House of the Parliament a copy of the direction together with his reasons for giving the direction. ‘.

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have to tell the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) that the Government is not prepared to accept his amendment. In the Government’s view, it seeks to challenge and ultimately remove ministerial responsibility. Furthermore, if it is taken to the extreme it will make the business of government thoroughly unworkable, and I am sure he appreciates that.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– I find it more than passing strange that all the arguments now put up by the Government to say that, firstly, the amendment would make Government unworkable and, secondly, it would take power away from the Minister, are exactly opposite to the concept of responsibility. I could sit here for the rest of the night and read to the Minister speeches made by members and senators which imply that no Government Minister could be trusted and that the whole thing had to come back to the Parliament. Clause after clause and amendment after amendment were moved to take power away from the Government and to keep it in the hands of the Authority. If there were any suggestion that the Minister had to give directions to the Authority the then Opposition, the present Government, insisted that such advice be tabled in the Parliament. Has the Government now had a change of heart or a change of philosophy? Has it done an aboutface? I am sure that if this Government were in opposition tomorrow, it would be doing exactly the same as it did from 1972 to 1975.

I am disappointed because I would like to see this Bill passed without any demur. We have not criticised one aspect. In fact, I compliment the Government and the Minister on what they have done so far. I think that the Minister has done an excellent job. The appointment of the Chairman, Mr Reid, and the directors- in fact, the whole set up-is starting off extremely well. All I can say is that either the Government comes to the realisation that what it was doing between 1972 and 1 975 was wrong and was just a means of harassing a Labor Government or it believes there is something in this Act to be kept secret. I am disappointed that the Government has not accepted this amendment because I think it is in line with what the present Government was saying when it was in opposition from 1 972 to 1 975.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

-In speaking briefly to the Australian Bicentennial Authority Bill, an example that comes vividly to mind concerns the legislation which set up the community health scheme in the Federal sphere. At the time the shadow Minister for Health was Don Chipp, now Senator Chipp. Of course, it may be that Senator Chipp has since become disillusioned to some extent with Liberal philosophies or that the Liberal Party has become more hard and closed its ranks in regard to ministerial responsibility. But I was perfectly prepared to accept the suggestion from the then honourable member Don Chipp, that not only should the proposals of the Government be made openly before the Parliament, but that, indeed, the Minister for Health should consult with his State opposite number before funding any proposal in any State.

Again, I cannot for the life of me, to use the words of the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), see what the Government could possibly want to hide in an exercise of this kind which is completely bipartisan. We are not opposing the principles or the aims of the legislation. Honourable members on both sides of the chamber have talked about unifying this country and not dividing it. Surely the main thing that creates distrust and division in our community is secrecy. That is the poisoner; that is the thing that kills trust and unity. I appeal to the Government to reconsider its position. Even if it will not accept our amendment at this stage, it should at least look seriously and hard at the proposition that the Minister voluntarily, even if he is not bound by the legislation to do so, places before both Houses and before and public whatever directions he gives in writing to the Authority. If he does not do so it will be far more of a vote of no confidence in that Authority than this amendment possibly could be a vote of no confidence in anybody, including the Minister.

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have one final word on this matter. What the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) and the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) seem to overlook is the fact that the Opposition is represented on the Authority. In fact, the honourable member for Robertson, who is leading for the Opposition in this debate, is a member of the Authority and any directions given to the Authority would be well known and understood by him. I would not say that it is mischievous, but it seems rather unnecessary to be pursuing this line. The directions will be known to all, including the members of the Authority.

Members of this Parliament and also members of the other place are on the Authority. So I think that this amendment really is an unnecessary exercise in semantics.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr John McLeay)- by leave- read a third time.

page 1376

AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House has a general debate covering this Bill and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1980 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-Both Bills are a later development of Parliament’s decision some years ago to transfer to the Northern Territory Government powers to control executive functions similar to those available to State governments. The Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1 980 is consequent upon the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. The Bill gives effect to the transfer of powers in relation to civil aviation. It is intended that the Northern Territory Government will have the power to issue licences on economic and public interest grounds for intraterritorial air services. The Commonwealth will retain control of matters relating to safety and operational issues. However, both a Commonwealth and Territory licence will be required before intraterritorial services can be provided. We should also note that the subsidy previously payable to Connair Pty Ltd will be payable to its new proprietor, East West Airlines Ltd, until the end of the contract period, 30 September this year, provided the services previously operated by Connair are maintained.

It should be noted also that the actual transfer of powers will be made by an amendment to the regulations under the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978 which I understand from the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) will be tabled in the near future. We will be looking forward to the tabling of those regulations and I would appreciate receiving from the Minister a copy of them when he introduces them into the chamber so that we may have a chance to peruse them within the available period.

The second Bill, the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1980, is consequential upon the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1 980. The effect of this Bill is to place Trans-Australia Airlines in the same position as Ansett Airlines of Australia in respect of intraterritorial air services licensing by the Northern Territory Government. I want to make it clear that under the proposed legislation, Territory to State and State to Territory and interstate operations are not affected. The transfer of civil aviation powers and the exclusion from intra-Northern Territory operations of Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett- the airlines that have long serviced this important region in Australia- marks the end of an era. It follows the purchase of Connair, the pioneer airline in the Territory, or Connellan Airways Pty Ltd as it was originally called, by East- West Airlines.

East- West Airlines has had an excellent record of service to the community in eastern Australia and, to a more limited extent, central Australia but the new venture that it has undertaken in taking over Connair is a major one. It carries with it the prospect of development of EastWest’s own airline and its network of services, but the types of services and the regions in which the airline has to operate are not of the same nature, nor are they as easy as those that might be found on the eastern seaboard of Australia. The new Northern Territory airline, whatever name is finally attached to it, has before it a rather major task to perform. I believe that it is a task which is not without its risks. East- West Airlines, as the principal airline in this case, following the passage of this legislation and the completion of formalities at a later date, will have the responsibility to meet the special needs of Territorians in the provision of transport services.

Trans-Australia Airlines currently operates into the ports of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. As I have said, the intraterritorial services by Trans-Australia Airlines will end. Ansett and its subsidiary, MacRobertson-Miller Airline services, operate into the ports of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Groote

Eylandt and Gove. As I understand the situation, the ports serviced by the MacRobertson-Miller airline will continue to be serviced by that airline pending the completion of arrangements and the equipping of the new airline. I understand also that the termination of intraterritorial services by the two major airlines, Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines, is an unwilling one. They would have much preferred to continue the services. Whether the decision which has been taken in that respect is the right one or the wrong one, as I indicated earlier, we will wait to see. But there is a daunting responsibility in the concept that has been developed in the Northern Territory to try to link all of the services to outstations and to the population centres and at the same time to cope with what is hoped will be an expansion of tourism and industry in the Territory. It is a daunting task, as I have mentioned a couple of times, but that is the task that the management of East- West Airlines has undertaken. I think we would all want that task to be a successful one as far as the company is concerned.

I am told that complementary legislation to the Bills before the House is now before the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I again stress that the services to be provided in the Territory are critical to the well-being of the Territory. They are critical to the health, education and employment of the people who live in the Territory and they are critical to its development. Added to all of that is the issue of what level of air fares will be applicable. A recent study undertaken by the Bureau of Transport Economics showed in respect of commuter services that a 10 per cent increase in air fares is likely to produce a 25 per cent reduction in patrongage. To me that projection of the degree of movement seems quite large. I repeat it only as I understand the figures that were produced as a result of that survey.

For the last two and a half years the Opposition- myself included- has conducted a campaign for a full scale investigation of the aviation industry with one of the principal objectives being a justification by government and by the airline operators of the fare scales which are in operation in this country. Last week the Government capitulated on this matter. The Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) revealed during Question Time that a public inquiry would be held into air fares. Today, one week later, we ask the following questions: By whom is the inquiry to be conducted? The answer is: Unknown. We ask: When is the inquiry to be conducted? The answer is: Unknown.

We ask: What will be the terms of reference? The answer is: Unknown. But the Minister for Transport has said that there will be a public inquiry into some segment of the air fare structure in Australia. I wish to impress upon Parliament and upon the community the importance of that inquiry. It cannot be a selective inquiry. It cannot be a whitewash inquiry because that just will not be accepted by the community. If it is to be effective, it must be all-embracing. It must look at ways and means of making air travel more accessible to those Australians in the community who presently do not have access to air travel or who simply cannot afford it.

The very simple fact is that air travel is just part of the public transport system. It happens to be one of the profitable areas of the public transport system. There is nothing special about it and there is nothing magical about it. If we spend $2 on airline services we look for $2 plus in revenue. The same mathematics, the same financial arrangements apply. So if the inquiry is to be effective we want to know the terms of reference. We want an assurance that increased productivity of the airlines will be taken into consideration. We want an assurance that the total fare structure currently in operation in this country, which has not been looked at or examined in any depth for many years, will be looked at publicly by this inquiry. We want an assurance from the Government that the airlines as privileged and protected operators in the public transport services, will not be able to plead confidentiality.

I refer to the Government’s role in this business of confidentiality and the excessive secrecy on airline matters. Let me give the House a very recent example. Just last week I received from the Minister for Transport the answers to a series of questions on notice that I had asked. Some of the questions related to the capital and operating costs, of seat reservation systems; some related to the costs of refreshments provided on aircraft and some related to fuel taxes and the component costs in fares and so on of fuel taxes for airline operations. The response in every case was that the information was confidential. Yet I was able to ask a staff member of one of the principal airlines yesterday, in the same manner as I am now speaking to this House: ‘Just what kind of moneys do seat reservations cost you to operate in a year?’. I was given an immediate answer. Added to the answer was: ‘Well, I am not sure. I might just look it up. Let me ring you tomorrow and give you the detailed answer’. So it is not the airlines that do not want to provide the information; either it is the bureaucracy- in line with bureaucratic secrecy- or there is some vested interest on the part of the Government of which this Parliament and the Australian public are not aware. But whatever the reason for it, the Government’s answer is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to the Parliament and it is not acceptable to the people for whom airline services were invented- the travelling public.

Mr Jull:

– How much does it cost?

Mr MORRIS:

-I will tell the honourable member privately. I want to check the figures. I am not quite sure that it is accurate but I will tell him privately when I have confirmed it. I am quite happy to do that. As I have said, the major airlines occupy a protected and privileged position in one of the few profitable areas of our public transport system. I stress that that protection and that privilege carry with them the responsibility on the part of airlines for full public accountability for the financial performance and efficiency of their operations.

More specifically, I return to what will happen in the Northern Territory. We have to emphasise that because of the location of the Territory on our continent and because of the population settlement pattern of the Northern Territory it is critical not only that the level of services that are provided to the Northern Territory be adequate to meet the basic and essential needs of the Territory and the needs for its development but also that the fare levels be such that people can afford to use the airlines. I wish to move now to the actual decision-making procedures of the industry. We have to move away from the established wisdom of the airlines and from that nice cosy little club where two or three fellows from the Department of Transport get together and quickly run through the information provided by the airlines when they want an air fare increase. We have to get away from the procedure whereby the Minister for Transport very obligingly announces the increases late on a Saturday night when members of the Press are all away, attributing the announcement to an anonymous spokesman for the Department of Transport.

Mr Martin:

– In the secrecy of the night.

Mr MORRIS:

-Like thieves in the night, really, but in a way that does not do the Government any good.

Mr Shack:

– To be fair, it has always been thus.

Mr MORRIS:

– I am quite sure that the former Minister for Transport would disagree with the honourable member. The honourable member can check his records- I will provide him with the dates- but I am quite sure that he is wrong.

The airlines are part of the public transport service. They have privilege and protection. They must account for their performance and for the fares they charge. This should be done in the honourable way so that when the matter arises it can be debated in the Parliament. If there is an open participation and a supply of information then, either in this Parliament or outside, we can discuss the issues based on fact, not on speculation, not on leaks and not on exaggeration. That is not the way to develop a policy; nor is the public bickering between airline executive a substitute for the responsible development of an appropriate aviation policy for the growth of this nation.

Mr Jull:

– It is a change.

Mr MORRIS:

-It may be a change. Some might find it enjoyable. It might fill some acres of Press pages. But it is not the responsible way to go about things in a nation like Australia which is so dependent upon air services. It is not a responsible way to develop the appropriate aviation policy for us. There is no justification for the kind of procedures that are being followed at the moment and have been followed in the past.

Can we go one step further? Can we really step into the twentieth century and give the people who foot the bill, the airline passengers, an opportunity to have a voice in the decision-making procedures? This is normal practice in other countries, including the United States of America- a nation which is portrayed as a great free enterprise country. It is normal practice there and there is nothing wrong with that. There is no difficulty in supplying information. It is normal practice when changes in route licensing are being discussed for those discussions to go on in a public way. I learned more in America about Australia’s participation in international aviation from American public servants than I was able to find out here in my own nation.

Mr Martin:

– It is a shame that you should have to go to that extent.

Mr MORRIS:

– It is a disgrace to us as a nation that there are people in government who are prepared to condone it. There are some people in government who do not condone it and I recognise that. We have to develop a system under which the people who use the service, who foot the bill, have a say in the price, availability and quality of the services that are provided to them. There is a simple way to do that and it is a way that we on this side of the chamber espouse. We will continue to push this as the appropriate way of giving the community a say in the decisionmaking procedures of the aviation industry. The way to do that is by the establishment of an airline users committee. We might want to call it another name when we come into government, but, for the sake of discussion, let us call it an airline users committee,

Mr Neil:

– You would call it a Soviet one, wouldn’t you?

Mr MORRIS:

– A neo-Fascist like you would not understand -

Mr Neil:

– The pro-communist members of the Labor Party would do that.

Mr MORRIS:

– I am sorry for those people opposite who travel with the Chinese communists and operate as lackeys in this country for the Chinese communists. Let us get back to the important issue before the Parliament, that is, the establishment of an airline users committee.

Mr Shack:

– A consumer voice.

Mr MORRIS:

– As the honourable member for Tangney says, and the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) agrees with him, consumers should have a voice in the decisionmaking procedures. It is only the strength of the bureaucracy that prevents this. We have to change it. If honourable members want an example outside the realm of fare levels, the range of services and the quality of services that can be influenced or contributed to by an airline users committee, let me remind the chamber that last year the Airline Passengers Committee took the early judicial action that resulted in the grounding of DC 10 aircraft following the disaster at Chicago airport. That was ridiculed at the time. It was a shocking thing to do! Later investigations and ultimate developments show that if the Airline Passengers Committee had not been there to initiate that action and if that decision had not been made tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of passengers would have continued to travel in aircraft that were subsequently found upon examination to have serious defects. So there is a role for an airline passengers committee. We on this side of the chamber will continue to press for a voice for consumers in the decision-making procedures of the aviation industry.

I turn briefly to a related subject. This debate demonstrates the view of those on this side of the chamber about the incredible incompetence in the management of the affairs of this Parliament. This is important-legislation. It marks the end of an era in the development of aviation service in Australia. What has happened today? Late this afternoon a supplementary program was issued. At the time of the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was informed that these two Bills were to come on for debate. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) did not find out until after dinner. His electorate is affected by the legislation. This is an example of the kind of shameful treatment to which members of this Parliament are being subjected. The second reading speech of the Minister for Transport is of six paragraphs in length. It lasted for one and a half minutes. The departmental officer who wrote the speech might think that that is good enough and the Minister might think it is good enough because that is all he said, but it is not good enough. Let me assure honourable members on the other side of the chamber of that. Eighty-six members of this Parliament sit on the other side of the chamber and yet a handful of those members speak on almost all occasions.

This chamber sat until 12.30 yesterday morning. We sat until 1.34 a.m. this morning, ostensibly to push through legislation. Those late sittings cost the taxpayers of this country a considerable amount of money in the payment of overtime, allowances and additional costs. What happened yesterday? Having sat until 12.30 yesterday, apparently to push through legislation, a number of important taxation Bills were gagged. How one can reconcile the use of the gag with keeping the Parliament sitting until 12.30 a.m. is beyond me. Having sat until 1.34 a.m. today we had the following Bills gagged: The Bounty (Ships) Bill, the Ship Construction Bounty Amendment Bill, the Bounty (Refined Tin) Bill and the Bounty (Penicillin) Bill. Yesterday the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was gagged. Just what is going on?

I am sure I speak for more than honourable members on this side of the chamber when I say that. This is a parliament and a government out of control. It is time we returned to the procedure of sitting regular hours and conducting regular business. Sitting long hours does not worry me as an individual if it is important to the nation and if it means a better consideration of legislation before the Parliament. But that is not what is happening. Bills which the Government feels are sensitive go through the Parliament in the middle of the night and Bills which are the subject of important discussion are gagged. Either the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) does not know what he is about or the Government just wants to run the House in a way that is completely contrary to the interests of this nation. As I have said, this legislation is important. Last year 10.8 million people- a very large proportion of our community- were passengers on airline services in this country. I can see from the list of speakers who are to follow me in the debate that they have had equally short notice to prepare for the debate. The Opposition does not oppose the Bills but, as I said, the legislation deserves far better treatment by the Parliament and far better notice so that proper consideration can be given to its contents.

Mr SHACK:
Tangney

– I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Air Navigation Amendment Bill and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill. I would like to deal in a substantial way with most of what the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) said in the first part of his speech. These two Bills are part of a package which, as the honourable member said, confer State-type powers on the Northern Territory in respect of civil aviation. The actual mechanical transfer of power requires amendment of the regulations under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. That will take place shortly. I do not think that that need concern me tonight. Under this legislation the Northern Territory will have power to issue licences on economic and public interest grounds. The role for the Commonwealth will be confined to safety and operational issues. For an airline to operate in the Northern Territory it will have to receive licences from both licensing authorities.

It is an interesting role for the Commonwealth in that it restricts itself to safety and operational issues. In fact, the Commonwealth, in presiding over the two-airline agreement, goes much further than this and governs a situation in which we have a most restricted environment far beyond concerning itself just with safety and operational issues. I have spoken before in this Parliament about the two-airline agreement. Until recently we had the manifestation of competition in things like in-flight service and some changes to frequency and the like and it was very much a situation where the two airlines were almost forbidden to compete in any way with respect to fares, equipment, services and schedules. Worse than that, no other airline- this is still the casecan compete with the two major airlines. Substantially, they got together under the chairmanship, as it were, of the Government and set their fares and that style of thing.

I hope that in the assumption of State-type powers the Northern Territory remembers its brief and that is that it has the power to issue licences on economic and public interest grounds. When I consider those two important elements of economic and public interest grounds, I hope that the Northern Territory residents will not be denied the benefits of free and open competition.

The Northern Territory situation at the moment is that the subsidiary of Ansett Airlines of Australia, MacRobertson Miller Airline Services, will continue those few routes that it has at the moment, Trans-Australia Airlines will cease its intrastate operations and the new Northern Territory regional airline will pick up the bulk of the services. The situation is that East- West Airlines Ltd is buying out Connair Pty Ltd and so we have the new airline, the Northern Territory regional airlines.

I hope that, in the not too distant future, we will not see a monopolistic situation such as we find in the airline situation in Australian today. I hope that the Northern Territory will persist with a free and open competitive situation so that both airlines may find their economic level, because one of the things that are forgotten in airline services today, I think, is the element of the consumer. We have a government concerned with frequency; we have a government concerned with standards of service. But in concern for both of those elements too often price is artificially sacrificed. I believe the only way we can find a complete and proper balance between frequency of service, standard of service and the price of that service, is to allow free and open competition. Only under that system can we get an equitable arrangement between all of those three factors.

I believe the Northern Territory has a great opportunity to set the standards for the rest of this country. If in fact, in a free and open situation, we find that frequency and standards are not being maintained and that there needs to be a maintenance of those two aspects for social and political reasons, then there is a role for direct Government subsidy in that situation. Let it be identified as such. Let it not be funded, as it is funded interstate at the moment, by crosssubsidisation. I believe that great crosssubsidisation is going on in this country at the moment where some of the long haul routes and some of the extremely popular and profitable short haul routes are subsidising so many of the other routes that are flown in Australia today. There has been pressure from within this Parliament for an independent, open, public inquiry. I am very pleased that the Government has seen fit to take up that pressure. We have had an announcement by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) that there will be an independent public inquiry.

I accept the comments made by the honourable member for Shortland that we do not yet know the exact terms of reference, we do not yet know the composition of that public inquiry and we do not yet know when it will be asked to report. But I am sure that the honourable member for Shortland will agree that there are important elements of any public inquiry. The Government needs time to consider the matter to ensure that we have the proper people on the inquiry; it needs time to consider it to ensure that we have the proper terms of reference; it needs time to consider it to ensure that the inquiry will, in fact, be given adequate time to properly report. I hope that the honourable member for Shortland will be as patient as I am patient so that in the not too distant future we will learn of the terms of reference, of who is on the inquiry and when that inquiry will report.

I believe that that is a most significant event in the airline situation in Australia today. Once and for all I hope that when that inquiry has completed its investigations we will be able to fully understand the airfare structure in Australia today and just how it is arrived at. I hope we will be able to fully appreciate the extent of crosssubsidisation and the money that is going from the left hand pocket into the right hand pocket. I hope we will be able to see exactly which routes are profitable and which are subsidising the unprofitable ones. In short we will have a complete picture of the air fare structure in Australia which has been in existence for some time. I think it is that sort of information that we are lacking at the moment. It is that sort of information that I am looking forward to receiving in the not too distant future. The airline system is under continuing review. I know that the Government is amenable to change in relation to that system. It is this sort of information that we need to have so that we can see in what direction proper changes need to be made.

I do not want to continue my comments any further because I know my colleague the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull) would like to make a few remarks. I certainly have no complaint in principle against this legislation. It simply confers State-type properties on the Northern Territory. I hope that in that inquiry the Northern Territory will realise its responsibility to its citizens. They are best served by free and open competition so that they get the correct balance between service, standard frequency and air fares. I hope that in the months ahead when the Northern Territory determines the State airline situation it will provide a shining example to the other States and, in fact, the Commonwealth. Certainly, at the very least, I hope it does not repeat the mistakes that have already been made by some of the other States and, I am sad to say, by the Commonwealth.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will not speak for very long. I want to take up from where the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) finished off. I did not hear the first part of his speech so I am not going to take the risk of congratulating him on the whole of his speech. I do congratulate him on the portion of his speech I heard just in case it was better than the beginning. It is on that note that I want to add to what he said about air charges. I would like to think that the terms of reference, when they are drawn up, will be wide enough to enable the public inquiry to assess what effect the enormous takeover bid that Rupert Murdoch and Sir Peter Abeles between them mounted to get control of Ansett Airlines of Australia has on the future fare structure of airlines in Australia. The people of this country and the travelling people in particular in this country are not going to think very much of those people whom they pay to look after their interests if those people do not take steps to ensure that the cost of this very expensive takeover is not, after all, in the final analysis, going to be paid by the travelling public. The Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) who is sitting at the table, I am pleased to note, nods his approval for what I say. It is a pretty poor show when big takeover bids take place and it appears on the surface that the money is coming from somebody else’s pocket when in fact all that is happening is that the cost of the excessive prices which are very often paid are passed onto the people who, because of the monopoly situation, have to pay it.

Mr Shack:

– They could not do it if there was genuine competition.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-They could not do it if there was genuine competition, that is right. The next thing we will find is that Ansett will be saying that it ought not to be put into the position where the capital structure of Trans-Australia Airlines, which is not bloated by the effect of the kind of takeover bid that we recently witnessed going on between Ansett and Peter Abeles and Rupert Murdoch, has an impact upon the fare structure. The other thing that I want to say to the Minister about air fares is that when I was a Minister I found that we were running constantly into a situation that related to the industrial relations side of the industry. Pilots would put wage demands on both companies, TransAustralia Airlines and Ansett Airlines. Ansett would always give in to the pilots’ demands.

The Government, which controlled TAA, was put in the position of either allowing aeroplanes to be grounded while we fought a battle of attrition with the pilots during which time Ansett was taking all our fares or having to yield also to the demands that had been met by Ansett. I said to my colleague, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), that he ought to make it clear to Ansett that, if he yielded to demands by pilots or to the demands of anyone else for that matter which we considered should not have been met, we should force Ansett to pay out of its own profits. That is not what they did. Every time Ansett yielded to a demand for extra wages, forcing us to follow suit, Ansett immediately followed that action with an application for an increase in fares. So all that was happening was that Ansett was using the money from the pockets of the people who had to use his aeroplanes to settle these industrial disputes. Anybody can settle an industrial dispute if there exists a monopoly situation from which one can simply pass on the cost of a settlement to somebody else- to the customers, the members of the public. That is what has been happening in the past.

I was never satisfied that the recommended increases in fares that were put to our Government were not the result of collusion between TAA or officers of TAA and Ansett. I am certain that there was collusion because everything was done too neatly for it not to be the result of collusion between the two companies. That has to stop. The Cabinet was never given proper figures. We were never in a position to get outside actuaries to look at the accounts of both companies. If Ansett and TAA want an increase in fares they should be compelled to declare publicly what their costs are. Up to the present date and when the Labor Party was in government this has never been done. As a government, we were stupid enough to fall for this stilly business about confidentiality. Confidentiality is all right when it applies to a person putting in income tax returns or something that is really confidential and which is not the business of the general public. But when we are dealing with the question of air fares, which is very much the business of everybody who has to use the aeroplanes, those people who will be called upon to pay the increased fares have a perfect moral right to have a look at the accounts upon which the application for an increase is based. I am pleased to notice from a statement- I think I am correct and the Minister can nod or shake his head in a moment- that the Minister has indicated that in future the basis upon which the public will be required to pay increased fares will be made public. The Minister is not nodding.

Mr Hunt:

– We will wait for the fares inquiry.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I hope that the Minister will take it on board. I am pleased to notice that his advisers are making notes while I am speaking which is a great tribute to the common sense of what I say. I always know when I am making a good speech because the Minister’s advisers start writing. But when they sit drearily yawning, looking as though they would rather go to sleep, I know that I have failed to make a good speech. I never talk to the Minister in Parliament. It is a waste of time. I talk to the people who sit behind him and I try to impress them.

Mr Martin:

– You mean his advisers?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I talk to his advisers. When I see them writing I know that I have arrived and tonight I feel that I have arrived. I end on that note because I notice that the advisers have stopped writing.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-The Air Navigation Amendment Bill and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill deal with the transfer of State-type powers to the Northern Territory in regard to civil aviation and the decision to transfer the power of control over executive functions. This has really come into being because of the agreement with the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments under the Northern Territory (SelfGovernment) Act 1978. This legislation implements the previous decision which came about through consultation between the two governments. In July 1978 it was agreed that the Northern Territory would not take over the responsibility of civil aviation because of its lack of experience at that time. That was probably fairly obvious when it came to the negotiations in the takeover of Connair Pty Ltd. There were many bidders in the field. East-West Airlines Ltd finally won and has taken over the affairs of Connair in the form of the Northern Territory regional airline.

There will be some very hard feelings, firstly, about what happened and, secondly, hard thinking because the Northern Territory regional airline is virtually East- West Airlines Ltd. It operates Fokker Friendship aircraft in the eastern States and an F27 service from Sydney to Alice Springs. Many services have operated around the Northern Territory. When I was flying for the airways there were 120 different portsmissions, settlements, mines, towns and cities. That number has decreased tremendously. I hope that the Northern Territory regional airline will service as many of those ports as are relevant. Many of them are not relevant. For instance, I used to go to Wave Hill and Victoria

River Downs. Wave Hill is now connected by a bitumen road but Victoria River Downs is not completely connected by a bitumen road. The Kimberleys, Auvergne, Ivanhoe, and Newry are connected by a bitumen road. In my day the only way of getting around the country for three or four months of the year was to fly with Connellan Airways. Naturally enough, there will not be the same number of places at which to call. The Northern Territory regional airline will have a duty to offer a service to as many of these places as possible in the outback.

Unless people living in the Northern Territory own an aeroplane they have to drive some hundreds of miles to pick up their mail. People are experiencing genuine hardships. Although the advisors took note of what was said by the father of the House, the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) I notice that they have not been taking a note of what I have said. However, on the Barkly Tablelands, several of the larger stations- Brunette Downs and Alexandria, for example- have their own planes. If one goes a little further north to places like Mallapunya and up into the Gulf country, people do not have their own planes. Their mail is either delivered by road from Mount Isa or collected at Tennant Creek. The new airline will have to do some hard thinking on the hardships that I have mentioned. Hard feelings will come in when the people who acted as agents for the two airlines previously operating up and down the track are taken over by the one airline, that is, the new northern airline. I only hope that the position has been explained to these people. These people have found that almost at the stroke of a pen some of their business has disappeared.

Another thing that will have to be looked at very hard is that during the negotiations much was made of the point that the new northern airline would be operating F28s up and down the track, that is, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. I do not know about the availability of the F28s by the time the new airline intends to start. The airlines say they will be available next year. All I can say is, good luck. In the meantime the new airline will replace two F27 services with another F27 service. In this respect their could be hard feelings. Some thinking will have to be done about this. I speak as a representative of the people of the Northern Territory. I do not want to see this one firm come in and in any way diminish the service that has previously been provided. There was enough criticism of that service as it was.

I note that the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) does say that the Connair subsidy will run its course through till September this year- and I am glad to hear that- provided the services previously operated by Connair are maintained. I do not know what is meant by ‘services previously operated by Connair’. At one time there were over 100 services. I do not know whether that number will be provided. I note that the Commonwealth will retain control over matters relating to safety and operational issues which will mean that a Commonwealth and a Territory licence will be required before interstate services can be provided. That is a very good safeguard. I think it was East- West Airlines or the new northern airline that had hoped to drive the major airlines virtually off the main jet route, that is, the route from Alice Springs to Darwin, but of course they have not got the equipment to do that and it will be a long time before they do have the equipment. Territorians complain about the frequency of services, and quite rightly at times. We complain about the arrival and departure times at various places because there is no curfew. However, we do have the 727-200 series and DC9s operating up and down the centre. I do not think that could be matched for quite a long time unless of course Ansett had held the contract and could have introduced its promised 737s.

As the Opposition shadow Minister for Transport has referred to this legislation ending an era, I would like to say that in actual fact I played some part in this era from the time of the construction of the aerodromes by hand between Alice Springs and Western Australia and years later flying aeroplanes around those strips. I also was on the board of Connair prior to becoming a member of parliament. I would like to pay a tribute to the founder of Connair, E. J. Connellan. I also pay a tribute to his family- his wife, his son Roger who unfortunately was killed in a disaster, and his brother. It is a true blue pioneering Australian family. When they went to the Territory Eddie Connellan went on to virgin land. We went out and built the strips. He flew around in a small biplane and picked the original air strips between Alice Springs and Wyndham, which was the original service. It started back in 1 939 with a Percival Gull and made, I think, about seven stops. It built up to over 120.

Although the company received a subsidy in actual fact it was a contract for the carrying of mail and the running of a service. At one time the subsidy was very high but it was gradually reduced. I think it is down to almost nil at this time. Connair earlier in its life could have been a viable third level airline service. I remember well the submission that E. J. Connellan put to the

Parliament- I think in 1971- to operate those services with 748s but he got no come-on at all from the Government. In fact the Government at that time said: ‘We cannot do it because they are not operated commercially in Australia’. That was complete and utter nonsense. They were not operated commercially but there were two squadrons of them at East Sale and all over the world 748s were operated extensively. If that submission had been accepted the Government at that time would not have had to worry about the tremendous subsidy that was required. Australia would have a very viable outback service today, but that went down the drain. Connellan himself had to battle on until the end when he was still using DC3s and his four-engine Herons which after all are of a decade or so ago. I also pay a tribute to those people who helped to develop that service because it is now a thing of the past. I will not name them but they included the pilots, engineers, ground staff, traffic control officers and staff and construction workers. One man I will name is Hugh van Heythuysen who used to take a grader and grade all the aerodromes between Wyndham and Alice Springs through the desert before there was any road built in the area. He used to start work before the wet season started so that when he finished grading the strips the rain that would fall on them would smooth them. He is still alive today and he lives in Darwin.

Mr Lucock:

– A real pioneer.

Mr CALDER:

-Yes, a real pioneer. I urge the incoming airline and the Government to ensure that what is supposed to be done under this legislation- to maintain the services that were given previously and to improve them- will be done, because currently the Northern Territory enjoys between Alice Springs and Darwin the 727-200 series and an occasional DC9; from Darwin to Perth DC9s and F28s which go out to Gove; the F27s up and down the track; and an F27 from Alice Springs to Ayers Rock before East West Airlines took it off the run. The new airline has promised an F28 and a stretched F27. I hope that the Government will ensure that the new northern airline will do what it has said it will do. I ask the Commonwealth, in close consultation which it has hitherto had with the Northern Territory Government, to ensure that that happens because there has been a really extensive service into and out of the Territory although at times it did come in for heavy criticism.

Let us face it: To take over the running of civil aviation in what is a State, especially one which involves far away places and great distances, is a great responsibility. I would hope that the Northern Territory Government, upon the transfer of these powers, would continue to do the good job that it is doing at present. It has the confidence of most of the people of the Northern Territory and I consider that the decision to give it that responsibility was well justified. I hope that it will not let the Commonwealth down in its administration of these air services. I wish the Northern Territory Government good fortune in what it will have to do and would just comment that this represents the end of a tremendous era of development in the Northern Territory. The Joint Committee on the Northern Territory, which at one time was headed by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) and at another time by Mr Bert Kelly, was convinced that the Northern Territory could handle that responsibility. That is what the Committee gave it. I wish the Government of the Northern Territory good luck.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What about rounding off on that note?

Mr CALDER:

-That is exactly what I intend to do. I wish the Northern Territory Government good fortune in what it will be called upon to do.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) is clearly identified with the pioneering activities of Connair Pty Ltd and I pay tribute to him in that respect. In the short time for which I intend to speak I say that nobody in this Parliament, and certainly not members of the Opposition, resents in any way the support and assistance that is given to the people of the Northern Territory, especially Connair Pty Ltd, by way of subsidies. I note from the report of the Australian Department of Transport for the year 1978-79 that Connair Pty Ltd benefited to the extent of $509,960, or more than half a million dollars. That company, with several other companies operating various air services in the Northern Territory, attracted a total subsidy of $752,999. That is the kind of assistance that has been needed. It has enabled the people of the Territory to derive great benefits. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory said, we are moving into a new era and are witnessing the end of the old era. Part of that is bound up in the fact that there will be more self-sufficiency. 1 note that the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) has said that the subsidy to East- West Airlines Ltd, which is to replace Connair, will continue until 30 September 1980- if the services are maintained as operated previously by Connair.

The essence of these two Bills is that they provide the Northern Territory legislature with the same powers and prerogatives in regard to the operation of air services in the Territory as obtains in the States of Australia generally. It is interesting to note that these provisions are consequential upon the passage of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill of 1978. 1 am very pleased to be able to say that the former Labor Government played a significant part in the passage of that legislation. It is not without significance that the honourable member for the Northern Territory mentioned that my colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) chaired an investigatory committee into these matters. Naturally, he could have chaired that committee only if he were a member of the government of the day. It was the then Whitlam Government which instituted the inquiries which culminated in the Northern Territory’s proceeding to attain statehood. That goal is now well on the way to attainment and the Labor Party is very glad to be identified with that circumstance.

As the Minister has pointed out, the purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the transfer of powers in relation to civil aviation. This is to be made in terms of regulations under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to which I have referred. Two Bills are being discussed. One provides that the transportation of passengers by the Australian National Airlines Commission in the Northern Territory shall be governed by the applicable Northern Territory law. The other is very consequential and has the effect of ensuring that in respect of the Act binding the Crown and its immunity from prosecution the Northern Territory will stand in its own right. That is what the Bill is all about. It is certainly not about Connair or the replacing company. It is about constitutional matters.

I wish to say a few words on that aspect and to point out that the purpose of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill of 1978 was to confer self-government on the Northern Territory by providing for the establishment of separate political representative and administrative institutions and to give the Territory control over its treasury. I note that in the Parliamentary Library summary of the legislation mention is made of the fact that in his second reading speech the Minister stated that the establishment of a Northern Territory government will necessitate amendments to a number of pieces of Commonwealth legislation. A list of these amending Bills was included in the Minister’s speech and mention was made of civil aviation. There is some misgiving abroad- certainly in the Parliamentary Labor Party and I know that there is conjecture to a similar effect in the constituency- that this measure represents an abdication of responsibility by the Commonwealth in respect of aviation. It has been a matter of pride that the Australian Government has had an exclusive prerogative in respect of aviation in Australian territories other than the States and that the Northern Territory has benefited very greatly by the Commonwealth’s prime position in this regard.

I do not feel that we can say that what is proposed does represent abdication. The Northern Territory is simply being placed on a footing equal to that of the other States. The Minister has made it clear that the Northern Territory Government will have the power to issue licences on economic and public interest grounds. That means that the Northern Territory legislature will become the initiator or catalyst. It is the legislative body which will determine whether an air service can obtain the primary licence to operate, but a dual licensing system is involved as well. The Commonwealth is to retain control of matters relating to safety and operational issues. The Minister has made it clear that licences will be granted only where the operator has established that it can comply with the relevant criteria. So both a Commonwealth and a Territory licence are necessary. It means that the Northern Territory legislature can say: ‘Yes, you can operate’. The Commonwealth can always say: ‘You cannot operate if you do not meet the standards which all Australians have a right to expect as they fly around this country’.

The last matter that I want to mention concerns the very interesting deliberations on the whole question of the constitutionality of civil aviation as revealed in the report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review of 1959. My colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) would recall this because if ever there was a committee comprised of eminent members of the Parliament it was this one. It included, of course, the then Prime Minister- Mr Menzies as he was at that timeand the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Evatt, as ex-officio members, and Mr Calwell and Mr Alex Downer, the honourable member for Angas as I think he was in those days, who later became our High Commissioner in London. It included also Mr Drummond, a very eminent member of the Country Party; Mr Hamilton, also a member of the Country Party, from Western Australia; Mr Percy Joske, who is now an eminent judge; Mr Reg Pollard, the former honourable member for

Lalor; Mr Eddie Ward, the former honourable member for East Sydney and Mr Whitlam an eminent lawyer who was later to become Prime Minister. The Committee had the job of working out, from a constitutional point of view, where aviation was to go in Australia.

It has to be borne in mind that when our Constitution was being drawn up in 1901 the Wright brothers were experimenting with aviation. Indeed, Lawrence Hargrave was experimenting with aviation at Bald Hill, Stanwell Park, New South Wales. I say as an aside that it is a terrible reflection on our sense of national pride that Lawrence Hargrave ‘s contribution to civil aviation has been so recklessly disregarded. There has been an incredible indifference about the fact that he developed hundreds of models of kites and various forms of aeronautical craft. The Germans recognised his contribution and took great quantities of his drawings and models to the University of Munich. Only in recent times are those relics and drawings being returned to Australia, and some of them are being exhibited in the technology museum at Ultimo, New South Wales. Efforts are being made now to recognise the work of Lawrence Hargrave by preserving his house under the Heritage Act and under the national trust legislation. Of course, that is an interesting saga in itself.

This great Committee drew attention to the fact that aviation was already a significant matter in Australia and it was to become far greater. In paragraph 472 of its report the Committee stated:

The Committee observed, in paragraph 111, that the Commonwealth did not have an express power over civil aviation but maintained its extensive interests in the development of the industry by reason of the national Parliament’s powers to make laws with respect to interstate and overseas trade and commerce, external affairs and the Territories of the Commonwealth. There was, however, an area of power which did not belong to the Commonwealth Parliament, namely, intra-state aviation.

This controversy has raged with considerable enthusiasm through the corridors of this Parliament all this week and I thought it appropriate to draw attention to the fact that already a judgment has been made by this panel of eminent parliamentarians.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why didn’t you tell the Caucus about this?

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The honourable member for Hindmarsh has asked why I did not enlighten the Caucus meeting, as it is described, in the way that I am now enlightening this Parliament. I was fascinated and intrigued by the debate and I felt that we had to put the raging controversy to rest, especially as we were moving into the Northern Territory and as the contention was that we were relinquishing a power which it would be good to maintain at the Commonwealth level. It would have been interesting to have had a comment about this from the Minister for Transport. In his frowsy second reading speech there were enormous deficiencies about constitutionality. We have now been able to put this aside. I quote one more paragraph from that report, paragraph 49 1 , which states, in part:

The exercise by the national Parliament of its constitutional powers enables some laws to be passed affecting intra-state civil aviation. For example, the implementation of an international convention may necessarily involve control of some aspects of intra-state aviation, but, generally speaking, the Commonwealth Parliament does not have any effective legal control of intra-state air transport operations.

Finally, in paragraph 507 of its report the Committee said:

Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that an additional paragraph be added to section S I of the Constitution to vest the Commonwealth Parliament with a concurrent legislative power over aviation.

If the Government of the day in 1959 had given effect to the unanimous view of that Committee we would not be having this debate today, but Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, distinguished in many ways as he was, was never very good at giving effect to recommendations from parliamentary committees. We can think of the great ramifications and recommendations from this constitutional review committee, of the Vernon report and of many other reports. The history of this nation would have been changed. This nation would have been advantaged if in those days we had had a Liberal-Country Party government which listened to the experts and to the collective thoughts of members of parliament on matters of great importance. But the fact is that there was no program of reform in the days of Menzies just as there is no program of reform in the days of Fraser. That is why over the last few days we have been talking about legislation with the most infinitesimal consequence. We have been filling in time because the Government does not have an idea in its head as to how it can advance this country. We are not at variance with the legislation. Under the circumstances we feel there is no alternative. It would have been a great thing if in respect of aviation the government had caused Australia to become one nation instead of six States.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-To say that this had been a wide-ranging debate would certainly be an understatement. I am sorry that I will not have a full opportunity to expand some of the arguments that I was going to put tonight. We should point out that this is very historic legislation, for a number of reasons. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) gave quite a history of those early aviation pioneering days throughout the Northern Territory. We ought to pay tribute to him and to those people who opened up that area. We should also pay tribute to Connair Pty Ltd which, under very hard circumstances, pioneered aviation throughout the Northern Territory and provided very good services. We hope that EastWest Airlines Ltd in its new capacity -

Dr Klugman:

– And all of it free for National Country Party members, just for a subsidy of about a million dollars a year.

Mr JULL:

– Or course, the Northern Territory is one part of Australia which is absolutely reliant on air transport. It will continue to be reliant on air transport. The point I am reaching is that that era is over. Now is the chance to expand and for air services in the Northern Territory to play their part. Quite frankly, I know that there has been a little apprehension in this House tonight as to the capacity of East- West Airlines to provide the full service that the people of the Northern Territory want. I have the utmost confidence in East- West Airlines. I would be prepared to say that in terms of Australian civil aviation in recent years East- West Airlines has been one of the most innovative airlines, if not the most innovative airline, in Australia today. I believe that, with the nature of its enterprise, it could make a very real contribution to the opening up of the Northern Territory.

Mr Bradfield:

– It will be changing its name to North-East-West Airlines.

Mr JULL:

– It will be operating under another name, probably Northern Airlines. If we look at its record, even before we got to the argument of making excursion fares available and trying to make air fares generally cheaper, we will see that East- West Airlines was in the market. East- West Airlines opened up the cheap air fare regime between Sydney and Alice Springs. East- West Airlines introduced cheaper fares on direct services from Sydney and Hobart long before the heavenly twins ever did that. I think it is a shame that we allowed the two major carriers, the Government airline and Ansett Airlines of Australia, to fly literally over the top of EastWest Airlines with their jets and to take away some of its services. Obviously there is a very great chance for East-West Airlines to prove itself once again in the Northern Territory. One of the outstanding features of the company’s operation in recent years has been its dedication to opening up new tourist destinations. Probably two areas of Australia stand out more than any others as potential tourist areas. They are the northern parts of Queensland and the Northern Territory itself. If one goes through the figures released by the Australian Tourist Commission it is interesting to see what are the desirable destinations. The two most desirable destinations in Australia for overseas travellers are, firstly, the Great Barrier Reef and, secondly, Ayers Rock. One would think that the entrepreneurial spirit of this new airline in the Northern Territory would help a great deal.

The possibilities of getting more and more Asian tourists into the Northern Territory- I am sure we are all looking at that- is one area on which East-West Airlines could probably concentrate. It will be able to bring this new capital, in the form of international tourism, through Darwin and down into some of these remote areas. One would hope that the opening up of the international airline services would be extended to Darwin as well. Despite the words of Sir Lenox Hewitt about doubling the number of services from Brisbane through Darwin to Singapore, I notice from the world timetable of Qantas Airways Limited effective from 29 March 1980 that Qantas has now reduced its services through Darwin to three a week. I think that is a great pity. One hopes that the interest that has been shown by Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and by some of the other Asian carriers will be realised and that they too will be able to link in with East- West Airlines in making the Northern Territory a most desirable tourist destination. Obviously, so much of our future wealth and the future wealth of the Northern Territory hinges on tourism.

The Northern Territory Government has taken the bit and introduced casinos into that part of the world. If we are perfectly frank, it is the casinos, which are a major attraction to many of those people who live in Asian areas. At the moment, there is a mass exodus from Taiwan of tourists for the first time. As well, there has been a build up of external tourism out of Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia. The fact is that at the moment Macao cannot handle the influx of tourism from those points. Once again, being perfectly honest, the prime reason those tourists are going to Macao is the casinos. The Northern Territory Government now has casinos in Darwin and Alice Springs and that is one market on which it could concentrate. It is one market that the new Northern Territory airline can hook into. The consequences of that could be tremendous for opening up that part of the world.

Returning to the point made by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), it is that type of development that can bring some stability to Northern Territory air services and let them take their part in the world as well. So apart from transferring those particular powers to the Northern Territory Government to look after intra-Territory services, and apart from saying farewell to an old era in civil aviation, I think it is time for the Northern Territory really to take the bit and make sure that the Government works in co-operation with the new airline and with the other carriers in that part of the world in helping to provide much needed wealth in those very remote areas of Australia.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I joint briefly in this debate, in the limited time available. The Air Navigation Amendment Bill and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill involve a limited transfer of authority to the Northern Territory Administration as a result of this Government ‘s granting them self-government a little over one year ago. Having listened to the debate tonight and heard the tributes paid by some speakers to the progress in aviation in the Northern Territory, particularly with East- West Airlines Ltd now going in and providing services there, I am prompted to look at the most recent annual report put out by the Department of Transport. It outlines the new works that are going on at many airports throughout Australia, particularly those in the Northern Territory. Looking through that list, one can see that work is being done on the building of a new airport at Ayers Rock in the Northern Territory. Work is also being done at Darwin Airport. When I see that work is also being done at such airports throughout Australia as Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Coolangatta, Melbourne, Perth and Proserpine, it makes me extremely dejected to see that Sydney Airport is not there.

I mention those facts because air traffic throughout Australia is very dependent on airport facilities being available. Many honourable members will recall that there has been great controversy recently over Sydney Airport and the hesitation of the New South Wales State Labor Government about being progressive and providing positive views on what should be done in the Sydney region. There is no doubt that the New South Wales Government should be cooperating with the Federal Government to select a site for a second Sydney Airport, which is badly needed in the Sydney metropolitan area. So far the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee, a joint committee of Federal and State authorities, has been able to provide only a report, which was gallantly brought down by the Federal members of that Committee. The State members of the Committee, the nominees of the State Government, have run for cover. They will not come out and state what is needed in Sydney. Once again, when I read the latest report of the Australian Transport Advisory Council and look at the growth figures of airport traffic in the area, I find that Sydney Airport and air traffic into Sydney has had a greater growth than any other airport throughout Australia. How is Sydney going to cope with that situation? Why does the New South Wales Government not come out and co-operate with the Federal Government? It has been said by members of the Opposition that it is the Federal authorities which want to expand Sydney Airport.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– True.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– It is not true. If one reads the MANS report, put out by the Federal authorities, it talks conclusively about a second Sydney site. That option is there, yet we cannot get any co-operation whatsoever from the New South Wales Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to say more about this matter, and I will do so at a later date. I am sorry that there is not time to do it now. However, I want to make the point that Sydney has had the greatest air traffic growth of any major airport in the last 12 months. Something needs to be done urgently about Sydney airport. Something needs to be done urgently about the traffic congestion in the Sydney area. I challenge anyone to tell me of any positive suggestion whatsoever that the Labor State Government of New South Wales has made in that regard. It has said only what it will not do. It has not made any positive suggestion whatsoever, and I suggest that it should do so very quickly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Hunt) read a third time.

page 1388

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Hunt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Hunt) read a third time.

page 1389

ADJOURNMENT

Herbicides -United States Consulate in Brisbane- War Pensioners- Defence Service Homes- Olympic Games-Western Australian Police Commissioner

Motion (by Mr Hunt) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

– I wish to express my concern and dissatisfaction at the apparently cavalier attitude of our Federal Government towards monitoring the effect of chemicals used widely throughout Australia in herbicides and pesticides. It now seems well established that these substances can cause a variety of effects such as birth deformities and cancer. The cutback in funding to the National Health and Medical Research Council comes at a time when increased vigilance over the detection of possible cancer-causing substances surely should increase rather than diminish. Indeed, in my own State, public concern has been raised appreciably and has forced the Queensland State Government to hold a two-year State-wide survey into birth defects on the basis of the alleged association between 2,4,5-T and birth abnormalities in the Cairns region. Only last week, the Australian Sugar Producers Association Ltd added its endorsement to the call for increased surveillance over these possibly hazardous substances. It joined such company as the Queensland branch of the Australian Medical Association and the Victorian Cancer Council, which deplore the cutbacks to the NHMRC committee which evaluates the effects of suspected chemicals.

Fortunately, concerned researchers and the aware public are not entirely deaf and blind to warnings coming from the United States, where improved detection methods and alertness on the part of health authorities have brought to light incontrovertible evidence of the toxicity present in some of these substances. Only last week I alerted the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) to the presence of dioxins in the widely used preservative PCP. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Minister’s answer to my question.

Leave granted.

page 1389

PENTACHLOROPHENOL

Question Time 19 March 1980

On 19 March 1980 the Honourable Member for Griffith (Queensland) asked a question concerning an article in the journal ‘Nature’ dealing with the occurrence of dioxins as impurities in pentachlorophenol (PCP). The question also sought information on steps taken by the Federal Government to control the amount of dioxins in PCP and the measures taken to monitor the sale and use of PCP throughout Australia.

I am able to provide the following information in response to the honourable member’s question.

The use of PCP in Australia is thought to be very small in comparison to the SO million pounds produced annually in the USA. It is understood that IS tonnes of PCP are imported into Australia and sold to various manufacturing industries including the paint industry. Furthermore, there is only one manufacturer in Australia which produces the sodium salt of PCP of which around 100,000 litres of a SO per cent solution are purchased annually by a small number of umber mills. Precautions, such as the wearing of protective clothing, are taken in the use of this material so as to minimise worker contamination.

In co-operation with State Governments, the Commonwealth is developing policies and programs for the management of chemicals which are potentially hazardous in the environment. The Australian Environment Council has established the National Advisory Committee on Chemicals to develop a national approach to assesment and control of environmentally hazardous chemicals. Dioxins in 2,4,5-T and other related chemicals, including PCP, are amongst those chemicals being given priority attention. Developments overseas in relation to control measures are being monitored closely.

Further information on health aspects of PCPS may be available from my colleague the Minister for Health.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

– I thank the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) and the House. United States institutions such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have all undertaken research which causes them to believe that PCP contains hazardous contaminants. An article in the scientific journal Nature reveals that PCP is currently one of the most widespread chemicals in domestic use. World-wide production is more than 100 million lb. annually. Our investigations into its use in Queensland have revealed that there are presently five brands of wood preservative containing PCP on the Queensland market and that it is also contained in two weed killers.

People in the United States who have become more informed on the matters of 2,4,5-T and PCP stress that it is the dioxin content in these substances which is hazardous. Unhappily, however, the World Health Organisation advises that it is unable to establish a no-effect residue level for dioxins mainly because dioxins are so toxic. Moreover, we have been advised that the

Queensland Department of Health does not analyse the dioxin content in commercial products containing 2,4,5-T while the position of PCP is unclear in this regard. Researchers have also alerted us to the fact that another chemical, myrex, which was banned in the United States in 1978 and which is known to cause cancers and birth defects, may now be dumped on the Australian market. We understand that the matter is presently before the advisory committee on chemicals of the Department of Health for registration for use as weed killer. Myrex is a persistent chemical which can last for up to 20 years in the environment before it breaks down. It also is capable of being stored in the body.

In the light of factual information coming from a country such as the United States, where vast amounts are spent annually on researchhence it can be assumed to have developed better detection methods- and also in the light of public concern expressed by information groups and individuals, I urge the Government to reverse its decision in regard to cut-backs to the National Health and Medical Research Council. Indeed, I strongly recommend that the Government step up its funding to this body to facilitate improved surveillance and to boost efforts directed at the prevention of cancer.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

– I will not delay the House for long tonight but I would like to make an appeal once more to the Government of the United States of America regarding the proposed closing of its consulate in Brisbane. This was a matter of very grave concern last year. In fact, President Carter did intervene and the consulate remained open. However, news has come to hand this week that the consulate is to be closed as an economy measure on 30 June this year. This seems to me to be rather a strange decision inasmuch as the new consul was officially welcomed to Brisbane only in the middle of February this year, and he is leaving already.

The amount of investment that the United States has in Queensland, the number of American citizens who reside there and the interest in the United States by the people of Queensland would all seem to me to be very great reasons for maintaining that particular consulate. For example, last year, taxation experts were flown to Queensland to speak to American citizens about filling in their income tax forms and about the problems of American nationals overseas paying income tax. That work will now all have to be done from Sydney. Much of it will have to be done on the telephone.

Last year, some 16,000 Queenslanders booked airline tickets to the United States of America. A great number of those people had to obtain visas. Those visas will now have to be obtained at much greater expense to the people of Queensland from either Sydney or Canberra. There are difficulties with American passports for those many thousands of American citizens now living in Queensland. I understand that it costs the United States Government about $250,000 to maintain that consulate. One wonders what the extra cost would be in forcing people to do most of their dealings with either the Sydney or the Canberra offices and the cost of flying United States personnel to Queensland.

This is a matter that is concerning the American population based in Queensland. I am sure it is a matter that concerns all Queenslanders and I know that the Queensland Government is desperately keen to maintain those very close links and those very close associations that the people of Queensland have had with the United States via that consulate. I sincerely hope that the United States Government will reconsider this move.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– It is rare for me to come into this chamber and make a comment about a member of this Parliament, let alone a Minister. But today at Question Time I was greatly concerned by the attitude of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). I paid him the courtesy of letting him know that I was going to make some comments about him this evening, but I understand that he is unable to be present because he has an appointment outside the Parliament. However, I feel it is necessary at this stage to place the matter on the record. During Question Time the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) questioned the Minister in regard to the herbicide agent orange and the four herbicides that the Minister had said were used by Australian troops in Vietnam. The Minister, in an attempt to trivialise the whole question, said in part: as far as I personally am concerned in the field of qualifications, they could be four horses running at Rosehill on Saturday.

I think that for a Minister with this Minister’s record, a Minister who was a member of parliament during the years of our involvement in the Vietnam War and who has a responsibility to those servicemen whom he sent to that war zone, that was a degrading answer.

I know that the question of Vietnam has always been an emotional one and I will try not to make it so tonight. But we should look at the record of the honourable member for Moreton, as he then was, in the early 1960s. He supported the Vietnam War. In fact, he was a hawk. I quote two brief comments that the Minister made in 1 966. He is recorded on page 1 69 1 of Hansard of 1 1 May 1 966 as saying:

Haiphong is, in my view, the key to the war in South Vietnam, simply because the great mass of material that sustains the Vietcong in South Vietnam must perforce go through Haiphong.

He went on to say proudly:

I am a hawk … I submit that there is a powerful case to be made out for blowing those port facilities out of the water.

He was also talking about British seamen on British ships which were at that time in port at Haiphong. We know that the Minister has taken an extreme position. I am not accusing Australian troops of having used what they call agent orange, which I understand is a mixture of the substances, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and contains an amount of that dangerous substance, dioxin. I am not saying that Australian troops did that at all. But what we are saying and what we are concerned about is that Australian ex-servicemen who were sent by honourable members opposite to that war zone in fact could have been poisoned at that time. Their families have suffered accordingly. Yet the Minister has trivialised the situation.

We also have to consider the sad situation of the people of Vietnam. Whether one disagrees or agrees with the Government of Vietnam, one has to consider the crimes perpetrated against the people of Vietnam. It is about time that Government members started to think about this question with compassion. We are talking now about people- the servicemen who went to Vietnam. Some of them went of their own free will. In fact, they thought that they were fighting for freedom. They came in contact with this substance and its effects can be genetic. I think we should have a judicial inquiry. That inquiry should be supported by Ministers from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) down who have had a long association with the involvement of our troops in Vietnam. We should make sure that a judicial inquiry is held to give the benefit of the doubt to those servicemen we sent to that war zone. It is about time that at least one honourable member on the Government side had the guts to get up and say: ‘Look, we need a public and judicial inquiry’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– I think I am perhaps the right person to reply to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). His remarks about the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) were, I am sorry to say, typical of him. He knows perfectly well that the Minister for Defence answered properly and correctly. If he had watched the television tonight he would have heard former Prime Minister Gorton say that to have a judicial inquiry would be one way of getting an answer. The former Prime Minister said that he was quite convinced that the Minister for Defence was correct in his assertions to this House.

I say to my honourable friend, who has been to Vietnam, as I have, that he does no service to the ex-servicemen of this country or to his party by continuing a dispute which is finished and gone. If my honourable friend wants to continue in this way he will do nothing but antagonise the ex-Service people of this country, the thousands of Australians whom I admire who were sent to the duty which they performed with great skill and great devotion. Whether their being sent to Vietnam was a correct or an incorrect action is a matter of opinion. For myself, I was completely opposed to the Vietnam war, as I said right from the beginning, even when visiting the United States in 1 960 and 1 964. It was the wrong war by the wrong people in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Now, of course, we have learnt our lessons and the United States is learning a lesson.

The arrival of the Shah of Iran in Egypt is in no way going to help the present crisis in the Middle East. Neither will the situation in Syria or Lebanon get any calmer. The flashpoint remains the same. The situation is a very serious one. As long as those American diplomats remain hostages in Iran anything can happen. There is no doubt that the United States forces in the Persian Gulf are on full military alert. I must say that I do not blame the United States in any way for taking precautionary action at this time. Therefore, if the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) described the situation that we are in as a serious brink of war problem, there is no doubt that he is absolutely right.

The Soviet Union has, of course, misinterpreted the meaning of detente. The people of the Soviet Union speak a different language from ours. One cannot blame them. To the Soviet Union detente means the pursuit of Soviet policy by other means. The Soviets will never deflect from that policy. The old brigade will never deflect from it. Unfortunately, the United States and the Western world thought that detente meant that things would go on quite peaceably and that the Soviet Union would be reasonable. What folly! What an extraordinary concept that was for the United States to take up. As a result of that misunderstanding aircraft were used to transfer thousands of troops from Cuba into Africa and cause the most utter confusion. The Soviet Union respects only two thingsresolution and power. Those are the first lessons that we have to learn.

Unfortunately, the whole problem that we face is how to deal with the Soviet Union at present. Whereas we have to be completely firm when dealing with the Soviet Government, the most ridiculous thing to do would be to try to get out of contact with the Soviet people. Therefore we must be very careful in adopting any policies which break down our association with the Russian people as a whole. This therefore puts our proposed boycott -

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take it that you do not support the boycott.

Mr YATES:

– I did not say that I do not support the boycott. A boycott is the one thing that the Soviet Union would have understood if it were properly co-ordinated from the beginning, if it were properly worked out to give it any chance of success. These things have to be said. The proposed boycott can be successful only if the rest of the world goes on with it. Therefore we are facing a very serious problem concerning the application of the boycott. We can give advice to athletes but we have no reason and no power to order them in any way or at any time. If they decide to go to the Soviet Union of their own accord they will certainly go to that country. They will compete for this nation in any way they choose. They will probably do extremely well. A government may give advice, but a free liberal government could never, ever try to use the methods of the Soviet Union.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) raise the question of exservicemen in this country. This evening I wish to raise the matter of the deplorable history of this present Government in relation to ex-servicemen in Australia.

Mr Hodgman:

– What a lot of poppycock.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It will benefit the honourable member for St George to listen carefully to what I have to say. Last week I brought to the attention of the House -

Mr Neil:

-I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Grayndler obviously cannot see straight. I did not even address him then. He has some kind of paranoia about me. I must say that I agree with the honourable member for Denison entirely in what he said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Grayndler.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would like the honourable member for Denison to withdraw as well, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find his remarks offensive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Grayndler is not speaking clearly. If he has a request to make to the Chair I would like him to make it.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Last week I brought to the attention of the House the shabby treatment that is being meted out to war pensioners by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. By an administrative act the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) has deprived many war pensioners of their fringe benefit entitlements. This week, in answer to question on notice No. 5351, further evidence of the Government’s appalling attitude towards those who risked their lives for their country was provided by the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs. It relates to the question of war service homes, which has always been accepted by members of this Parliament as being the subject of bipartisan policy. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table provided in the Minister’s answer. I have sought permission from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) to do so.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This table which was contained in the Minister’s reply shows the arid position of this Government’s policy on war service homes. The value of loan approvals for war veterans’ homes has fallen from $113m in the last year of the Labor Government to $76.7m in the last financial year. As can be seen from the table there was no waiting list for loans during the Labor Government’s tenure of office and, indeed, during the tenures of office of previous governments. However, since this Government has taken over, in 1976-77 there were 1,944 people on the waiting list and in the last financial year there were 3,377 people on the waiting list. Those people had had their loans approved. It now takes an ex-serviceman approximately two years to collect the money after the Government has approved his loan. This is from a government that for many years has survived on what it alleges it has done for ex-servicemen in this country. Indeed, one has only to look at the legislation that the Labor Government brought in to see that we did a number of things for people in the area of ex-Services homes. We widened the entitlement of people who are eligible to apply for an ex-Services home and we increased the amount of money available from the pittance that was provided by the previous Liberal Government.

This Government has once again reverted to the position of not allowing people to expect to get the entitlement that governments have promised them over the years. This Government has said that an ex-serviceman will now have to wait for up to two years to get the money that the Government has approved. The amount of the loan has been reduced astronomically. I say to members on the Government side that this is further evidence of their callous disregard for those who have fought for Australia. I say to them also that as they celebrate Anzac Day next month, as they make their speeches at the local Returned Services League club and as they pour forth empty rhetoric let them bow their heads in shame for the hypocrisy of their actions in depriving ex-servicemen of a right which has been theirs for many years.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I intend to talk on the subject of a foreign presence and to so do in support of my friend the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Jull). Before doing so, I want to make a passing reference to the comments of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). My remarks are not necessarily directed at him. It is all very well for members of the Australian Labor Party to stand in this House and say that the Government or those on this side of the House should do this and that for veterans, but there is no escaping the fact that during the Vietnam War many members of the Australian Labor Party not only opposed our involvement in Vietnam but also actively supported the enemy and indirectly were the cause of the death of some young Australians.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Fadden will resume his seat.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Yet members of the Opposition stand here and postulate about what we should talk about on Anzac Day. People perished in Vietnam.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fadden will resume his seat.

Mr Holding:

– I raise a point of order. The allegation that a member of this Parliament supported the enemy in a war situation is tantamount to an allegation of treason. It ought to be withdrawn -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has made his point. The Chair is prepared to rule on it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fadden will resume his seat. Whilst an argument may be advanced that, because of the collective nature of the accusation, it would not require a withdrawal, the Chair is of the view that the reflection is of such a serious nature that the honourable member for Fadden should withdraw.

Mr Neil:

– It is true.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Some honourable members on this side of the House are saying that it is true. Despite that, I will say that it was not intended for anyone in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will withdraw.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is true, so help me God.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fadden will withdraw.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Members of the Australian Labor Party were going around the streets chanting: ‘Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh’. I remember that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fadden will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Fremantle.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

-A grave threat to democracy exists in Western Australia. This has nothing to do with the alleged offences of those who have recently been arrested for alleged breaches of the Western Australia Electoral Act. It is wholly and solely to do with a psychopathic tendency of Police Commissioner Leitch, who attempts to apply the law with such outrageous political bias that he ought to be immediately removed from office. To give honourable members an example of this man’s political bias and his degenerating psychosis, let me quote an editorial which he wrote in August 1975 for the Police News. He said-

Mr Neil:

– I raise a point of order. I have been waiting a long time for the honourable member for Fremantle to state his point of order. The honourable member for Fadden is making a wonderful speech. Everything he has said is correct and true.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for St George will resume his seat. The Chair has elected not to hear the honourable member for Fadden any more for his defiance of the Chair. The honourable member for Fremantle has been given the call.

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Commissioner Leitch said:

To overthrow a democracy, you first destroy the forces of law and order.

Western Australia is a vast mineral treasure chest particularly to those countries less fortunately endowed. One has only to listen to the media and to cast his eyes in a northerly direction to see the geographical advances made towards Australia. The left-wing Fretilin controlled East Timor is the latest stepping stone . . .

This country on its own would have great difficulty in defeating or ‘knocking the skin off a rice pudding’ of any would-be aggressor including the penguins from Antarctica.

Mr Neil:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you elect, in your absolute discretion, not to hear any more of this drivel from the honourable member?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George may be dealt with for taking specious points of order.

Mr DAWKINS:

-Commissioner Leitch continued:

This is one of the reasons why I hope our (police force) critics will ‘take care’, while giving a body blow to the police morale and thereby playing into the hands of a possible aggressor.

There is absolutely no criticism to be levelled at the Western Australian Police Force. What is happening is that the Police Commissioner, on his own, is degrading the good name of the Western Australian Police Force. Quite frankly, the Western Australian Police Force can no longer afford to have a lunatic like Leitch as its Commissioner.

Mr Hodgman:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know the man to whom the honourable member refers, but -

Mr DAWKINS:

– Sit down, you galah.

Mr Hodgman:

– I submit that the matters that the honourable member is raising must clearly be raised by a substantive motion, but it is totally improper to defame a man in his absence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr DAWKINS:

-Commissioner Leitch has recently informed Western Australian newspapers that his sole aim in his current vendetta is to precipitate a new election in the Kimberleys.

Mr McLean:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I feel that you should ask the honourable member for Fremantle to withdraw the comment he made against my colleague the honourable member for Denison.

Mr DAWKINS:

-I withdraw. Would the Commonwealth monitoring group in Zimbabwe have tolerated it if General Walls had interrogated black voters and asked them whom they voted for? Where on earth does the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) stand on this issue? How on earth can he attend the celebrations in Zimbabwe while this son of activity is occurring in his own backyard? The point is that Commissioner Leitch is furious to the point of deranged obsession because the candidate of his choice did not win the election in the Kimberleys.

Let us take a couple of examples of the way in which the Police Commissioner tries to enforce the law in Western Australia. At the time of the election in 1977 one of his police officers, Sergeant Corker, stood outside the polling booth and ordered Aboriginal voters to leave the polling booth. He told them that they had no place there and to leave and go home. At the same time, as a result of an action in the Court of Disputed Returns, a conspiracy was uncovered which involved senior members of the Liberal Party, including the then State AttorneyGeneral. In relation to those two instances the Police Commissioner chose to take absolutely no action at all. On this occasion, a self-confessed purveyor of grog for the purposes of influencing the vote, Mr Widdell, has had no action taken against him. The interesting thing about him was that the grog was supplied from a hotel the licensee of which is currently on a good behaviour bond for assaulting two Aboriginal youths. He bound them, shaved their heads and marched them down the main street of Kununurra to the police station. That is the sort of person that Commissioner Leitch is protecting. This vendetta against Aboriginal voters is not to be tolerated. Several breaches of the Electoral Act have been alleged against other people involved in this election and yet Leitch has taken no action against them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I did not want to take up the time of the honourable member for Fremantle, but you directed an honourable member to withdraw allegations made against members of the Australian Labor Party and took action against him. The honourable member for St George then repeated that allegation, saying that it was true, which was clear defiance of the Chair and which I find offensive. I ask that the honourable member be required to withdraw his allegations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has made his point. The Chair did not hear the remark. It does not disregard the possibility that it was made, but this is one of the penalties attaching to incessant interjections and high levels of conversation.

Members disadvantage themselves as far as seeking the protection of the Chair when they maintain that level of noise.

Mr Neil:

– Hear, hear! A Labor rabble.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for St George acknowledges having made the remarks, I call upon him to withdraw.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for St George just described members of the Opposition as a rabble. I ask him to withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat. If the honourable member for St George acknowledges having made the remark, I would ask him to withdraw.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not address any specific words to the honourable member, despite his conduct.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for St George made a remark, even in a collective sense, that echoed the remark that the Chair required to be withdrawn previously, I would invite him to withdraw.

Mr Neil:

-I withdraw the statement. To help my friend the honourable member for Denison, I withdraw the statement ‘ Labor rabble ‘.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I wish members of the Opposition would get as enthused about what is happening in Afghanistan and the slaughter of 40,000 innocent people at the hands of the Soviet Union as they get enthused about what happens in country hotels in Western Australia. I have now lost nearly half of my time, but I want to say this: I invite any honourable member opposite- I know there are honourable members there who have a commitment to human rights- to get his feet in this Parliament and make some comment about the report of the International Human Rights Federation, which has been established in Paris since 1922, which is recognised by the United Nations and which has now laid a confirmed, categorical charge against the Soviet Union with respect to the use of poison gas, chemical warfare and germ warfare in Afghanistan.

Like the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), I objected to the use of napalm in Vietnam. I objected to chemical warfare in East Timor and I object to it in Afghanistan. What is wrong with members of the Opposition? Have they lost their tongues or are they following Premier Wran, who says that he is going to crucify Australian foreign policy? There will be one policy for the nation of Australia and one for the

State of New South Wales. Neville Wran is a Soviet stooge and a puppet of Moscow.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I raise a point of order.

Mr HODGMAN:

– You are as bad as he is. You are as red as he is.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. It being 1 1 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2. 1 5 p.m.

House adjourned at 1 1 p.m.

page 1397

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations (Question No. 5298)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) When was the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations established.
  2. Who are the Council members and what are their qualifications for membership.
  3. How are members appointed or elected.
  4. What administrative support does the Council have, (by number of officers, designation and salary) and where is that support located.
  5. 5 ) How often does the Council meet.
  6. How many meetings have taken place since the Council was established.
  7. Who were the participants at each of those meetings.
  8. Where were those meetings held and what was their duration.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 26 October 1976.
  2. and (3) Membership of the Council is by way of appointment by the Governor-General. Requirements and qualifications for membership are set out in section 8 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976. Names of present members of the Council are given below under the relevant category of nomination prescribed in the legislation:

Commonwealth Government- Mr B. D. Simon, M.P., Mr I. B. C. Wilson, M.P., Senator B. F. Kilgariff.

Commonwealth Opposition- The Hon. L. F. Bowen, M.P., MrC. J. Hurford, M.P.

State Parliaments-The Hon. J. R. Hallam, M.L.C. (NSW), The Hon. H. Storey, M.L.C. (Vic), The Hon. K.T. Griffin, M.L.C. (SA), The Hon. W. D. Lickiss, M.H.A. (Qld), The Hon. I, G. Medcalf, M.L.C. (WA), The Hon. Kathleen Venn, M.L.C. (Tas.).

Australian Council of Local Government AssociationsWarden F. L. Britton (Tas.), The Rt Hon. J. V. S. Bowen (SA), Councillor E. H. Woods (NSW), Councillor F. A. Rogers, M.B.E. (Qld), Councillor C. W. Tuckey (WA), Councillor W. Thwaites, O.B.E. (Vic).

Australian Citizens-Mrs P. Bernard, M.B.E. (NSW), The Hon. Peter Howson (Vic), Mr H. E. Peterson (Qld), Mr H. S. Lodge (WA), Professor R. C. Gates, A.O. (NSW).

Obervers-The Hon. P. A. E. Everingham, M.L.A. (NT), Mr J. H. Pead, M.B.E., M.H.A. (ACT).

  1. Council has created a Secretariat of 1 1 officers, all of whom are located in Hobart.
  1. and (6) Council meets as and when required and since its inaugural meeting in Hobart on 10 June 1977, Council has met on twelve occasions.
  2. Participation at Council meetings is restricted to appointed members or their deputies along with one observer each from the Nothern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Details of attendance at meetings of Council are as follows:

First Meeting

Members present- Professor R. L. Mathews, Chairman, Mrs P. Bernard, M.B.E., Warden F. L. Britton, Councillor R. Dickson (Deputy for Mr Rogers), The Hon. W. C. Fife, M.P., The Hon. W. A. Haigh, M.L.A, The Hon. P. Howson, The Hon. A. J. Hunt, M.L.C, Mr C. Hurford, M.P. (Deputy for Mr Whitlam), Senator B. F. Kilgariff, Mr H. S. Lodge, The Hon. I. G. Medcalf, M.L.C, Alderman A. G. Percival, Mr H. E. Peterson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Roche, The Hon. D. W. Simmons, M.H.A., Councillor A. Strickland, Councillor W. Thwaites, O.B.E., The Hon. T. Uren, M.P., The Hon. K. Venn, M.L.C., Mr I. B. C. Wilson, M.P.

Observers in Attendance- Dr G. Letts, M.L.A., Mr J. H. Pead, M.B.E., M.H.A.

Second Meeting

Members present- Professor R. L. Mathews, Chairman, Mrs P. Bernard, M.B.E., Alderman J. Bowen (Deputy for Mr Roche), Warden F. L. Britton, Councillor R. Dickson (Deputy for Mr Rogers), The Hon. W. A. Haigh, M.L.A., The Hon. P. Howson, Mr R. Jacobi (Deputy for Mr Uren), Mr H. S. Lodge, Mr I. McLaren, M.L.A. (Deputy for Mr Hunt), The Hon. D. H. O’Neil, M.L.A. (Deputy for Mr Medcalf), Alderman H. G. Percival, Mr H. E. Peterson, The Hon. D. W. Simmons, M.H.A., Councillor H. Strickland, Senator T. J. Tehan (Deputy for Senator Kilgariff), Councillor W. Thwaites, O.B.E., Mr I. B. C. Wilson, M.P., Mr A. P. Whitlam, M.P. (Deputy for Mr Whitlam).

Observer in Attendance-Mr J. H. Pead, M.B.E., M.H.A.

Third Meeting

Members present- Professor R. L. Mathews, Chairman, Mrs P. Bernard, M.B.E., Warden F. L. Britton, Mr A. G. Cadman, M.P. (Deputy for Mr Fife), Councillor R. Dickson (Deputy for Mr Rogers), The Hon. W. H. Haigh, M.L.A., The Hon. P. Howson, The Hon. A. J. Hunt, M.L.C., Mr H. S. Lodge, The Hon. I. G. Medcalf, M.L.C., Senator A. J. Messner (Deputy for Senator Kilfariff), Mr H. E. Peterson, The Rt Hon. J. J. Roche, The Hon. D. W.

Fourth Meeting

Fifth Meeting

Sixth Meeting

Seventh Meeting

Eighth Meeting

Ninth Meeting

Tenth Meeting

Eleventh Meeting

Twelfth Meeting

  1. Location of Council meetings and their respective durations are listed below:

Guatemala (Question No. 5306)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a November 1 979 document circulated by Amnesty International (NSW) which alleges that two prominent Guatemalan politicians, Alberto Fuentes Mohr and Manuel Colom Argueta, were murdered early in 1979.
  2. If so, is he able to substantiate the information contained in that document.
  3. Has the Australian Government made any representations to Guatemala regarding the allegations of violence, torture, killings and disappearances which are made in the document.
  4. If so, when were those representations made, by whom, and what were the results.
  5. If no representations have been made, will he give this matter his early consideration.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) I am not aware of the specific document referred to by the honourable member, but I am aware of the matters which he states are referred to in it.
  2. Dr Alberto Fuentes Mohr, a Congressional Deputy and a former Guatemalan Foreign Minister, was shot in Guatemala City on 25 January 1979. Manuel Golom Argueta, the leader of a newly-constituted Labour-oriented political party (the United Revolutionary Democratic Front) was shot on 22 March 1979. It is not clear who was responsible for the killings, but they have fuelled speculation about the Guatemalan Government’s role in the widespread violence that exists in Guatemala today.
  3. , (4) and (5) The Government is concerned about the extent of the violence and repression in Guatemala. In December 1979, on my instructions, the Australian Ambassador in Mexico City, who is accredited to Guatemala, registered with the Guatemalan authorities the concern felt by many Australians at the continued violations of human rights in Guatemala. Australia voted in favour of a resolution concerning human rights in Guatemala at the just concluded 36th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The resolution, which was adopted 26-2-14, expressed the Commission’s profound concern at the situation of human rights in Guatemala and called on the SecretaryGeneral to bring the resolution to the attention of the Government of Guatemala and to report back to the Commission at its next session on the results of that contact.

Immigration Advertising (Question No. 5436)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What was the total expenditure on advertising for prospective immigrants for the years (a) 1977-78 and (b) 1978-79.
  2. In which countries were these funds used, and what was the percentage of total expenditure in each country.
Mr Macphee:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The total expenditure involved was (a) 1977- 78-$ 1 17,93 1; (b) 1978-79-$245,006.
  2. (a) 1977-78- expenditure was in Britain only; (b) 1978- 79- Britain 87.6 per cent, West Germany 5.9 per cent, The Netherlands 5. 1 per cent, Italy 1.4 per cent. In interpreting this distribution it should be borne in mind that many foreign Governments do not permit Australian Government migration advertising, and others impose firm controls.

Surf Life Saving Clubs (Question No. 5443)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

Since December 1975, in relation to surf life saving clubs in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Hughes, and (b) Cook (i) what sums have been allocated or are to be allocated by the Commonwealth, (ii) which clubs have received or are to receive grants, (iii) what is the total cost of each project which has attracted a grant and (iv) what percentage of the total cost is covered by each grant.

Mr Macphee:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Commonwealth Government allocates a grant each year to the National Council of the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia.

In 1 979-80, the allocation was $280,000: $ 1 50,000 to be expended on equipment on $ for $ basis and for direct assistance to needy clubs; and $130,000 on administration and on-going special, national projects.

The former is apportioned by the National Council to the various State Branches for distribution to the individual clubs. The National Council, in consultation with the State Branches, determines priorities and State-by-State breakups of monies. I do not have any details of the specific breakups for individual clubs by electorate.

Division of Fisheries and Oceanography (Question No. 5445)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

Further to the answer to question No. 5 162 (Hansard2 1 February 1980, pages 299-300) what are the problems associated with the CSIRO’s continued occupancy of the site atCronulla,NSW.

Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

CSIRO ‘s continued occupation of the site at Cronulla for fisheries and oceanography research creates several problems which it is believed cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

The site is located between Bates and Gunnamatta Bays which are part of a shallow estuary in which without extensive dredging it is not possible to provide adequate berthing facilities for research vessels of either the Oceanus class, or stern trawlers, such as the RV Soela which is currently on long term charter to CSIRO. Limited dredging has been carried out to give access to smaller research vessels of up to 20 metres. However, this has created environmental problems in disposing of the dredged materials.

The side is extremely rocky with uneven topography and only a very limited portion suitable for the construction of research laboratories and marine facilities. Road access to the small vessel wharf is difficult.

The site is one in which there is a considerable amount of environmental interest. CSIRO has been requested not to undertake any construction work that would interfere with aboriginal middens present on the site, the rock formations, and some trees. This further inhibits planning on the small portion of the site that is suitable for housing laboratories and facilities. In accord with NSW Government Foreshore Development Codes and local Authority regulations, the height of all buildings is restricted to two storeys.

The site is not entirely Commonwealth owned, some 40 per cent of the total site being under lease from the NSW Government and that lease expires in 2002. At this stage there is no guarantee that CSIRO would be able to extend the lease beyond that date.

Given these limitations planning studies have shown that it is not possible to accommodate more than 1 80 staff on the site. The Executive of CSIRO has recently completed an extensive review of the future of marine science in Australia and identified physical, chemical and biological oceanography as an area of highest priority and commitment. The existing Division of Fisheries and Oceanography has been restructured into two groups, concentrating on oceanographic phenomena on the one hand, and fisheries research on the other, to be known as the CSIRO Marine Laboratories. The Executive envisages a maximum of 250 staff in the Marine Laboratories and interaction between research scientists, and their common use of libraries, workshops, research vessels and technical facilities such as photography and scientific editing makes a single, adequate site essential.

Sports Coaching (Question No. 5446)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. What action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Austraiian Sports Institute Study Group whose report was presented to Parliament in May 1976.
  2. In particular, what action has been taken to implement those recommendations relating to the establishment of (a) a national system of coaching accreditation (recommendation 5), (b) a system of multi-level coaching courses- (recommendation 6), and (c) professional training in sports coaching in association with tertiary education institutions- (recommendation 7).
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The recommendations of the Australian Sports Institute Study Group have been the subject of close examination by the Recreation Ministers’ Council (RMC) since 1976. At its meeting in February 1977 the Council agreed that there was a need to implement recommendations 5-30 of the Study Group’s report. It further agreed that in implementing these recommendations, the training of sport coaches should be accorded first priority.
  2. (a) and (b) As a result of the co-operative efforts of Commonwealth and State Governments and national sports organisations through the Confederation of Australian Sport and the Australian Olympic Federation, the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme was launched in July 1979. The Scheme offers the opportunity for an ongoing coaching education program for all coaches in all sports through the provision of coaching courses at three levels. The courses are specific’ to each sport and provide information relating to both the general principles of coaching and the theory and practice of the particular sport.

The Australian Coaching Council, which has been established to co-ordinate the development of the Scheme, has already approved national coaching programs submitted by soccer, weightlifting, canoeing, parachuting, athletics and volleyball. Others are currently being evaluated.

The coaching courses will be run on a co-operative basis between State Departments responsible for sport and the sports themselves. For its part, the Commonwealth Government has commissioned the production of ‘general principles of coaching’ manuals to be used by coaches involved in courses at levels I and 2 of the Scheme, and will provide accreditation material, such as certificates and badges, to those coaches who are accredited by the sports at the particular level.

  1. (c) In relation to professional training in sports coaching at tertiary level, I understand that the Australian Coaching Council has commissioned a report as to how this should occur in Australia. The Council believes there is a need for training at that level but feels that, because of its specialist nature, it should be kept separate from the three levels of the Scheme developed to date.

It is important to note in the overall context of the Study Group’s report that the Government recently announced details of the establishment of a national sports training institute in Canberra from January 1981. The institute will give potential top class sportsmen and sportswomen access to specialist training programs while allowing them to pursue their tertiary studies. It is intended that students attending the institute could undertake a new Government funded sports course at the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE), or attend professional courses at the CCAE, the Australian National University and the Bruce College of Technical and Further Education. Consideration is also being given to how secondary students could gain access to the institute ‘s facilities and programs.

The Government is presently holding detailed discussions on the operation of the institute with representatives from education and the various sports, as it is to be hoped that the institute will be a model for the development of similar institutions around Australia over time.

Repatriation: Italian Partisans (Question No. 5447)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

Has he received representations from the Italian Partisans Association in Australia requesting that repatriation legislation be amended so as to extend service pension benefits (recently extended to Allied veterans) to those who were conscripted into the Italian army during World War II, but who later served voluntarily with the Italian partisans.

Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I received representations on this matter from the Italian Association of Partisans in Australia on 19 October 1979. On 27 November 1979, I wrote to the President of the Committee of the Association outlining the legislative requirements for eligibility for service pensions.

Nuclear Waste (Question No. 5452)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to state whether the United States Government is investigating proposals to dump nuclear power station waste from Japan, Korea, Taiwan or the Philippines on Palmyra, Midway, Wake or other Pacific islands as a safeguard against reprocessing for production of plutonium, the most dangerous by-product of the industry, the most poisonous substance known and an element never found in nature.
  2. Has the Australian Government been asked to consider alternative dump sites in the greater military security area of this continent; if so, what was the response.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The United States is undertaking a preliminary study of the possibility of locating a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel for a period of about 30 years on one of the United States territories of Palmyra, Midway or Wake Islands in the Pacific Ocean. An aim of the United States study is to demonstrate the technical and economic viability of an interim spent fuel storage facility as an alternative to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. (See also answer to question No. 2279 in Senate Hansard of 23 November 1979).
  2. No.

Myopia (Question No. 5455)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article on bifocal control of myopia by Kenneth H. Oakley and Francis A. Young in the American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, being a lecture to the 1 973 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Optometry and a study supported in part by a United States Public Health Service Grant.
  2. If so, does the study show myopia progression of -0.12, -0.10, -0.02 and -0.03 dioptres annually in bifocal wearers compared to -0.38, -0.36, -0.53 and -0.52 respectively in control subjects for various groups according to age ( between 6 and 1 5 years overall ) and race.
  3. Were the groups studied for an average of 4 years, with the 12- 14 year olds inclusive being studied for 3.1 years and the 15-16 year olds being studied for 2.7 years.
  4. Does the cumulative effect in the groups of 43, 83, 226 and 192 subjects have significance when the refractive difference is totalled for the whole period of the study.
  5. Is the annual rate of progression for bifocal wearers about 4 per cent for right eyes and 6 per cent for left eyes of that shown by control subjects.
  6. Do the authors point out serious statistical fallacies in previous studies.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. The article does argue that the progression of myopia in children is decreased if bifocals are worn. The overall age group studied, however, was between 6 and 2 1 years.
  3. The groups were studied for the periods mentioned, except that it was the 7- 1 1 year olds who were studied for 4.0 years.
  4. When the total population under study is considered, there does appear to be a refractive difference between those who wore bifocals and the controls.
  5. This is the conclusion reached on the article.
  6. The article does make reference to a lack of suitable matching between bifocal wearers and controls in one previous study. However, I am also aware that the scientific basis of the article itself has been criticised (see answer to House of Representatives Question No. 3688, Hansard, 4 June 1979, page 2878).

Veterans’ Affairs: Recording of Telephone Conversations (Question No. 5505)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

Has any member of his departmental or personal staff tape recorded a telephone conversation with a war veteran, member of the press, or other member of the public.

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I have made extensive enquiries and am satisfied that there has been no tape recording of telephone conversations within my Department.

Unemployment Benefit: Child Allowances (Question No. 5519)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the amount of the benefit payable in respect of a dependent child to a person in receipt of unemployment benefit.
  2. When was this rate of child allowance established.
  3. On how many occasions since that date has the rate of adult unemployment benefit been increased.
  4. What is the current value of the child allowance in constant ( 1 975 ) prices.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The maximum rate of additional benefit that may be payable in respect of an eligible child of a recipient of unemployment benefit is $7.50 a week.
  2. This rate of additional benefit for a child has applied since 1 November 1975.
  3. Since November 1975, the rate of unemployment benefit for single persons aged 1 8 and over without dependants has been increased on five occasions. For the same age group with dependants, the rate has been increased on six occasions. For married couples, the rate has been increased on seven occasions.

Tables 62 and 63 of the 1978-79 Annual Report of the Department of Social Security contain detailed information on changes in rates of pensions, benefit and allowances between 1963 and 30 June 1979.

Changes since then are outlined in the Ministerial Statement on Social Security Programs presented on 21 August 1979.

  1. The Consumer Price Index was 32.5 per cent lower in December quarter 1 975 than in December quarter 1 979.

Film Industry (Question No. 5533)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1 980:

Does the Government support the expansion of the indigenous Australian film industry, in both the public and private sectors.

Mr Macphee:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Government supports the growth of Australia’s indigenous film industry which has received commercial and critical acclaim internationally.

Direct Government assistance is provided to the Australian Film and Television School and the Australian Film Commission. The 1979-80 appropriations are $4m and $9.779m respectively for these authorities.

The Austraiian Film and Television School provides specialist training for persons wishing to make a career in the film industry and for persons already working in the industry. The achievements of graduates from the School within the film industry are well known.

The Australian Film Commission provides financial assistance in the form of loans, grants and investments for the production of many different types of films. Additionally the Commission assists in the development of scripts and the marketing of films. The Commission has also provided financial support for private companies servicing the film industry, usually in the form of loans. In some instances such support has ensured the continued smooth functioning of the film industry in Australia.

The Government has supported the expansion of the Australian film industry through the introduction of income tax provisions to encourage private sector investment in the industry.

Where an investor holds rights in or under the copyright in an Australian film, one half of the acquisition cost is allowable as a deduction in the first income year in which the rights are used by the investor for the purpose of producing assessable income with the balance being deductible in the second year. Balancing adjustments are to be made if and when the owner disposes of rights.

Western Australian Election: Aboriginal Legal Service (Question No. 5534)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. I ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports alleging that attempts were made in Western Australia to deprive Aboriginal citizens of their right to vote.

    1. If so, does the Minister condemn any attempt that may have been made to do so.
    2. Is there justification for the Aboriginal Legal Service endeavouring to ensure that Aborigines in Western Australia are able to cast their vote.
    3. Is there any evidence, apart from partisan political comments which may have been made, to suggest that the Aboriginal Legal Service or its officers may have exceeded these objectives; if so, what is the evidence.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) I direct the honourable member’s attention to my reply to a question without notice asked by Senator Rocher on 21 February 1980 (Hansard, pages 178-9).

Decade for Women: National Conference (Question No. 5584)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will delegates to attend the National Conference this year to mark the United Nations sponsored Decade for Women be chosen by the established elective procedures for the Conference: if not, does he intend to appoint any delegates.
  2. If delegates are to be appointed (a) on what basis will they be selected and (b) how many will be appointed.
Mr Macphee:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Procedures for electing or selecting delegates to attend the National Women ‘s Advisory Council ‘s National Conference to mark the mid-point of the United Nations Decade for Women were the responsibility of sub-committees of the Council set up in each State and Territory. I am informed that the Australian Electoral Office conducted elections at conferences in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania and assisted with some aspects of elections at the ACT Conference. I understand that State Electoral Office advice was sought in South Australia. The Alice Springs Conference ballot was supervised by the responsible subcommittee. Delegates from Darwin and New South Wales were selected by sub-committees on the basis of nominations put forward by women in that State and region. In addition, delegates-at-large were appointed by the National Women’s Advisory Council itself. Seven delegates-at-large were appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs.

  2. (a) The purpose of appointing delegates-at-large was to ensure that the broadest possible range of women’s views would be represented at the Conference and that those representing women with special needs and interests, such as Aboriginal women, women from rural and isolated areas, migrant women, disabled women and women with special expertise and experience would be able to attend. Attention in selection of delegates-at-large was also given to appropriate representation from all States and Territories.

    1. 60 delegates-at-large were appointed. A list of these delegates noting their State of origin was made available from the office of the Minister for Home Affairs before the Conference and given to all delegates and observers attending.

National Estate: Mount Etna and Limestone Ridge (Question No. 5585)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

  1. Has an area known as Mount Etna and Limestone Ridge, 22 kilometres north of Rockhampton in central Queensland, been placed on the interim list for the Register of the National Estate.
  2. Has the Co-ordinator-General of Queensland lodged an objection to the listing of this area; if so, does the objection (a) question the present environmental significance of the area and (b) centre around the Queensland Government’s long-standing policy that limestone mining should be allowed to continue in the area.
  3. If the objection does not relate to these matters, what is its basis.
  4. Have any other approaches been made by the Queensland Government to (a) the Australian Heritage Commission or (b) him in relation to the listing of the Mount Etna-Limestone Ridge area; if so, what was the substance of these approaches.
  5. Has he communicated with the Australian Heritage Commission on matters specifically related to the listing of this area; if so, what was the substance of these communications.
  6. When are objections to the listing likely to be examined and a final decision made on rejection or acceptance of the area for listing in the register.
Mr Macphee:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I have been advised by the Australian Heritage Commission as follows:

Yes.

Yes (a) No. (b) Yes.

See 2 (b) above.

(a) and (b) No.

No.

In accord with normal practice, independent consultants will visit a number of areas to which objections have been received. This field trip is scheduled for June-July 1 980.

It is hoped that the recommendation of this independent panel of experts will be available for the consideration of the Australian Heritage Commission at its August 1980 meeting

Fuel Consumption (Question No. 3792)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 May 1 979:

What are the most recent Australian petrol, distillate and heavier oils consumption utilisation percentages for the various industry categories, including power generation, manufacturing industry, primary industry, and the various public and private transport sectors of road and rail haulage and passenger services, government department vehicles and domestic cars.

Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The data sought are presented in the table following. For motor spirit and distillate consumption in government department vehicles, I would refer the honourable member to the response made by the Minister for National Development to Question No. 4328 of 6 November 1979.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Political Interviews (Question No. 4709)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which members of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, other than the Premier, Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Country Party, have been interviewed on ABC radio and television programs during 1979.
  2. On which particular programs have they appeared, at what time was the program broadcast or televised, what was the total length of time of each interview and what was the estimated listening or viewing audience in each State.
  3. Who was the person in the ABC responsible for arranging each interview.
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The following table lists those Members of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly who were interviewed on ABC radio and television programs during 1979. The ABC does not estimate audience sizes. It purchases syndicated ratings material which covers, at various times in the year, capital cities only. This material is copyright to the organisation undertaking the surveys.
  2. 3 ) The interviewer in each case was under the direction of the Executive Producer of the relevant program.

Repatriation Inquiry (Question No. 5279)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

  1. Which recommendations has the Government accepted from the report of Mr JusticeToose’s Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System presented on 19 February 1976 (Hansard, page 105).
  2. Which recommendations has the Government rejected.
  3. Which recommendations is the Government still considering.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Recommendation Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 19, 2 1, 24, 26, 28, 31, 35, 51, 57, 58, 59, 64, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 109, 116, 120, 122, 148, 153, 156, 157, 185, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 218, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 249, 250, 254, 258, 261, 262, 276, 294, 299, 301 and 303 have been accepted in whole or in part.
  2. Recommendation Nos 20, 22, 23, 53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 63, 65, 67, 68, 72, 74, 77, 79, 93, 102, 103, 106, 108, 121, 158, 159, 160, 161, 180, 181, 183, 184, 204, 205, 214, 217, 219, 220, 221, 228, 235, 248, 251, 252, 253, 264, 274 and 275 have been rejected.
  3. Recommendation Nos 6, 9, 25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 61, 62, 86, 87, 89, 94, 97, 105, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119,

123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 240, 244, 245, 246, 256, 259, 260, 267, 269, 271, 272, 277, 278, 279, 280, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 295,

296, 297, 298, 300 and 302 are still under consideration.

Note: The numbers of the recommendations referred to are those in the Summary of the Report of the Independent Enquiry into the Repatriation System.

Defence Service Homes Scheme (Question No. 5351)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What sum was granted for Defence Service Homes during each year since 1970.
  2. How many (a) applications were received for Defence Service Home loans and (b) loans were approved during each year since 1970.
  3. 3 ) How many applicants were on the waiting list for loans as at 1 January in each year since 1 970.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The Honourable Member asked for the information referred to in his question to be provided in calendar years but, as the details over the total period are available only in financial years, it has been necessary to reply on that basis.

Fortescue Oil Field (Question No. 5400)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is the size of the Fortescue oil field approximately 280 million barrels.
  2. If so, does this mean that at current crude oil prices, the production of oil from this field would yield the producers approximately $7,000m and that there would be no crude oil levy with Fortescue classified as new oil under the Government ‘soil policy.
  3. If classified as old oil, would its production yield the producers approximately $2,000m with a levy of approximately $5,000m.
  4. Has the Government made, or been provided with, any assessment of the cost of producing Fortescue oil.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. I ) and (2) Yes, but this must be seen in the context of the Government’s policies which are achieving their purposes. (See Mr Newman’s press statement of 27 November 1979 on Fortescue Oil.)

    1. The price received by a producer for oil discovered prior to September 1 975 is dependent on a number of factors as outlined in Appendix to Statement No. 4 in the 1979 Budget Papers. Current prices for the various categories of crude oil were set out in my press statement of 30 December 1979.
    2. Broken Hill Proprietory Co. Ltd announced in a press statement released on 10 January 1980 that the capital expenditure needed to maximise Fortescue production will be more than $2 40m. My Department has no specific information at this state on expected operating costs for the Fortescue field.

Bureau of Mineral Resources (Question No. 5401)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister say in a statement on 27 June 1979 that the Government will give a new and upgraded role to the Bureau of Mineral Resources.
  2. If so, what specific steps has the Government taken since June 1979 to improve the ability of the Bureau to evaluate Australia ‘s oil reserves.
  3. Which of these steps have included the improvement of the Bureau’s capability to collect and collate information on known and recently discovered oil fields.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The Bureau’s capability in these areas is generally satisfactory, but with the steady increase in petroleum exploration activity the need for some increase in staff is currently under consideration.

Bureau of Mineral Resources (Question No. 5402)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for National Development announce on 25 October 1979 that the future role of the Bureau of Mineral Resources would be inter alia to be the primary national source of geoscience data and to publish and provide information, and to undertake mineral resource assessments in accordance with programs and priorities approved by the Minister for National Development with the advice of the Bureau.
  2. Did that Minister also say that there would be increasing emphasis by the Bureau in relation to energy resources.
  3. ) If so, why has the Government failed to ensure that the Bureau is able to fully evaluate claims independently by oil producers in relation to whether oil discoveries should be classified as new or old oil.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. The Bureau of Mineral Resources is able to fully evaluate independently claims by oil producers in relation to whether oil discoveries should be classified as new or old oil.

Fortescue Oil Field (Question No. 5403)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. I ) Was the basic data, with the exception of some chemical analyses, used by the Bureau of Mineral Resources in its analysis and interpretation of the Fortescue situation collected and collated by Esso/BHP.

    1. Did the Bureau use (a) oil/water contact levels, (b) pressure measurements in wells, (c) stratigraphic correlatnons (d) seismic interpretations, and (e) chemical analysis of oil components, on oils in the Fortescue, Halibut and Cobia areas in its analysis of the claim by Esso Australia Ltd that Fortescue is a new oil field.
    2. Was Esso’s claim, and the Bureau’s conclusion, that Fortescue is new oil, based on oil/ water contact level data; if so, was this data provided exclusively by Esso.
    3. Did Esso claim, and did the Bureau accept, that the pressure data provided supporting evidence for this claim; if so, was this data provided exclusively by Esso.
    4. Did Esso claim that stratigraphic data is consistent with its interpretation that Fortescue is a separate accumulation from Halibut and Cobia.
    5. Did the Bureau report that the stratigraphic correlations cannot of themselves prove that the Fortescue oil is a separate accumulation from Halibu-Cobia but that the interpretation made by Esso is considered reasonable and is consistent with the concept of a physical barrier between the Fortescue and Halibut-Cobia areas.
    6. Did Esso claim that the seismic data is consistent with its interpretation that Fortescue is a separate accumulation from Halibut-Cobia and did the Bureau report that this data provides only supporting information to the general case presented.
    7. Did Esso present chemical analysis by liquid chromatography of the heavier hydrocarbon fractions of Halibut, Cobia and Fortescue oils which suggested that Halibut and Cobia oils were different from Fortescue oil.
    8. Did similar analyses conducted by the Bureau indicate that the oils are quite similar and were subsequent analyses made by Esso inconsistent with both previous analyses.
    9. Did chemical analyses presented by Esso of other components of these oils show only subtle differences between Halibut and Cobia oil and Fortescue oil.
    10. Did the only evidence not collected, collated and supplied exclusively by Esso (chemical analyses) not allow firm conclusions to be drawn about the nature of Fortescue oil.
    11. 12) Is it a fact that there is no doubt that Fortescue is a separate oil accumulation, not discovered before 17 September 1975.
    12. Was the Bureau able to make an impartial assessment of Esso ‘s claim in relation to Fortescue oil in view of (a) the fact that the evidence in support of Esso’s claim was provided substantially by Esso, (b) the fact that Esso stands to gain financially from an assessment based on its own evidence and (c) the fact that evidence provided independent of Esso failed to confirm Esso’s claim.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. I ) to ( 12) See Bureau of Mineral Resources Professional Opinion PEB/80.001. ‘Summary Report on Classification of Oil in Fortescue Area ‘, a copy of which was forwarded to the honourable member on 24 January 1980.

    1. Yes.

Tuberculosis Pensioners (Question No. 5449)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many tuberculosis pensioners have appealed regarding their re-assessment during the non-recurring review.
  2. How many cases were resolved either substantially or partially in the complainants’ favour or are still incomplete.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The information sought by the honourable member is not readily available. Its extraction would require an expensive and time-consuming exercise.

However, I can assure the honourable member that the independent determining authorities, on each of which there is a member nominated by ex-servicemen’s organisations, will handle these cases as quickly and sympathetically as possible.

Nuclear Power Stations (Question No. 5474)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 980:

  1. Is there inconsistency between the Minister’s predecessor’s answer to question No. 3475 (Hansard, 8 May 1 979, page 1977) and that to question No. 761 (Hansard, 19 September 1978, page 1171).
  2. If so, is the Minister able to say how many nuclear power stations have been (a) ordered, (b) cancelled and (c) deferred during each year since 1970 in the United Kingdom, and in each case what was the total generating capacity.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Following UK Government approval in early 1978, contracts were placed for the design of four nuclear reactors (Heysham Bl and B2, Torness 1 and 2). It was understood, on the basis of information collected by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, that orders had been placed for supply of the nuclear steam supply systems. Consequently, these reactors were included as ‘ordered’ in answer to question No. 76 1 . Subsequently, there were found to be no contracts signed and, in keeping with the definitions given in the answer to question No. 3475, the AAEC removed the reactors from the ‘ordered ‘ list. To date there is no indication that firm orders have been placed, although planning and detailed design work have been continuing.
  2. (a) Heysham Al and A2, each of 625 Megawatts net, ordered December 1970. (b) and (c) Nil.

Radioactive Waste Disposal (Question No. 5499)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

Has the Government been informed of the results of the research into radioactive waste disposal undertaken by the Australian National University which is included in the list of programs receiving Federal Government support in his predecessor’s statement ‘Grants totalling $ 1 .3 million for research on solar wind and nuclear energy ‘.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

On the recommendation of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council (NERDDC) grants have been approved to support a 3 year program of research by Professor Ringwood of the Australian National University to develop the ‘SYNROC process, which is an alternative method of immobilising highly radioactive waste elements. In the most recent progress report Professor Ringwood states that most of the fundamental work on mineralsystems selection and phase equilibria has been completed. Detailed studies on mineral chemistry and crystallography are underway. Most of the experimental work on incorporation of radioactive waste elements into crystal lattices is complete. Further work is necessary in the cases of technetium and sodium and also to determine upper limits of concentration of radioactive elements in SYNROC. Further support for work on SYNROC at ANU is provided by an Australian Atomic Energy Commission research contract worth $21,400.

The Government is also supporting research at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to scale up SYNROC fabrication using methods which are realistic on a production scale as compared with the small scale laboratory methods in use at ANU.

Cyclone Research (Question No. 5515)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the present state of the joint United States of America-Australian Government cyclone research program Project Stormfury.
  2. Can he state if the research carried out by the CSIRO is different to that carried out by the USA
  3. Will the Australian Government, through the CSIRO continue with the program, regardless of whether the United States Government withdraws from the project.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Project Stormfury is a long-term research program conducted by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with the aim of developing techniques for amelioration of tropical cyclones using cloud seeding. Australian officials have had informal discussions with US officials on the possibility of conducting the Project from Australia during the Australian cyclone season. Formal negotiations have now commenced.
  2. Research carried out by CSIRO is conducted on a much smaller scale than the USA program. Present research at the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Physics is confined to theoretical and laboratory simulation investigations of the genesis of cyclones. The Organization has no independent observation program. Its effort is of quite different character from, and supplementary to, the United States research which is centred on extensive observation of cyclones from aircraft.
  3. The experimental part of the program is carried out solely by the United States team. As a full commitment to this pan of the research requires as many as five specially equipped large aircraft during full scale operations the Organisation would be unable to provide such resources.

CSIRO would continue its theoretical work. In the Organization’s view, the most cost effective procedure is to rely on participation in binational and international observing programs whilst conducting theoretical work necessary for understanding the results of these observations.

Help Yourself Campaign (Question No. 5621)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Does his Department’s ‘Help Yourself campaign use T-shirts worn by females with this slogan over their breasts.
  2. If so, has he received complaints about the doubleentendre in the slogan from the Adelaide Rape Crisis Centre Collective.
  3. If these complaints have been made, will he join these women in objecting to the use of women’s bodies as a gimmick in an advertising campaign aimed at improving preventive health, both physical and mental.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The T-shirt donated by Colonial Mutual, for use in my Department ‘s test of the ‘Help Yourself campaign, has been produced in a size range which caters for both men and women and carried the following words on the front- help yourself (logo) Colonial Mutual

The Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited* sponsors better health’

  1. One complaint only has been received and this was from the Adelaide Rape Crisis Centre.
  2. The very essence of the campaign is to present better health as fun, as fashionable and as a goal towards which individuals can help themselves. The title of the campaign and the campaign itself is proving most successful in each test area; men’s and women’s bodies have not been used as gimmicks.

Association for the Protection of Rural Australia (Question No. 5643)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1980:

Does the Association for the Protection of Rural Australia, previously known as the Association for Regional Parks and Countryside Commissions of Australia Inc., receive any Commonwealth Government funding through his Department?

Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

No.

Courses in Nuclear Technology (Question No. 5648)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1 980:

Do any courses of the Australian School of Nuclear Technology include lectures or other coursework relating to (a) uranium enrichment, or ( b) plutonium separation.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (b). Prior to 1977 the Australian School of Nuclear Technology (ASNT) provided a course on Nuclear

Technology aimed at Science and Engineering graduates from Australia and overseas. Since 1977, the ASNT has offered a course on Introductory Atomic Energy aimed at both graduates and undergraduates. Both of these courses include some lectures of a general (i.e. non-specialist) nature relating to uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing (including plutonium separation). These subjects are treated from an historical viewpoint and include only information which is freely available from the open literature.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 March 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800327_reps_31_hor117/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant